Primary Steele Dossier Source Acquitted

[rahl]

the issue to which i was responding was the claim that mueller was not able to find the 'evidence' to 'establish' the conspiracy because of alleged obstruction.
as Mueller himself testified, their investigation was unhindered.

nope. As the report clearly and explicitly states, he hindered and obstructed.

 

[rahl]

there was no obstruction.

It's outlined in crystal clear english in the report.

mueller testified that his investigation was unhindered.

That the obstruction failed to hinder him, does not change the fact trump obstructed, as the report clearly and explicitly states.

the claim was 'attempted' obstruction which many people argued was the same as actual obstruction.

It is.

 

[Slyfox696]

I cited his testimony to that elsewhere.

No you didn't. Why are you blatantly posting lies? What you DID post was immediately and directly contradicted with facts.

Trump tried to obstruct the investigation. This is indisputable.

 

[soap box]

I cited Mr. Mueller testimony where before Congress when he said his investigation was unhindered.
Don't know what else to tell you.

The reason why we hear recycled right wing claims on Trump/Russia charade is because they have been shown to be correct. The recycled Left wing claims keep being shown as false.

I remember that citation and there's a BIG problem with your claim. You cited questions that did not ask him if his investigation was hindered. They asked other questions with different answers. No, Mueller never said what you are claiming. Go back and look at what you cited, it's not what you think it is.

 

[Deuce]

about what?

About what you just posted, any part of it. Do you believe Mueller?

 

[Deuce]

there was no obstruction.
mueller testified that his investigation was unhindered.
the claim was 'attempted' obstruction which many people argued was the same as actual obstruction.
in any event, the allegation itself was weak.
which is why the congress never sought to impeach trump over it and absolutely why the doj has not bothered with it in the days since biden was inaugurated.

So, you are claiming obstruction of justice is only a crime if you are successful? LOL!

 

[Atomic Kid]

Obama's campaign paid a $3million fine for accepting payments with an unknown origin. You tell me.

Jesus Christ! Is there anything you are not ill-informed about? First of all the Obama campaign was fined $375,000 by the FEC. Making it a civil matter, not a criminal matter. The FEC doesn't prosecute criminal violations of election law. What it mainly had do with was a series of missing 48-hour notices for nearly 1,300 contributions totaling more than $1.8 million. The FEC requires federal campaigns to file notices with the FEC on all contributions received within 20 days of an election that are in excess of $1000. A requirement the FEC takes seriously. There were some other infractions too such as erroneous contribution dates on some reports and late returns of monies in excess of the legal limit. While that $375,000 dollar fine was among the largest in FEC history. But it was not out of line proportionally as the Obama campaign was the first billion dollar Presidential campaign in history. The donors numbered in the millions. The FEC commissioner said the infractions were relatively minor given the scope of the campaign. The infractions committed by the Obama campaign were not alleged to be intentional and the FEC didn't consider them as rising to the level of a serious prosecutable offense by the DOJ. As opposed to what Cohen did by intentionally attempting to hide an illegal contribution for the purpose of affecting an election.

 

[Atomic Kid]

That may have been Russia's objective/
It wasn't Manaforts

Senate committee concludes Russia used Manafort, WikiLeaks to boost Trump in 2016

Russia used Republican political operative Paul Manafort and the WikiLeaks website to try to help now-U.S. President Donald Trump win the 2016 election, a Republican-led Senate committee said in its final review of the matter on Tuesday.

www.reuters.com

The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence alleged Manafort collaborated with Russians, including oligarch Oleg Deripaska and “Russian intelligence officer” Konstantin Kilimnik, before, during, and after the election.

"The panel found Manafort’s role and proximity to Trump created opportunities for Russian intelligence, saying his “high-level access and willingness to share information with individuals closely affiliated with the Russian intelligence services... represented a grave counterintelligence threat.”"

Its based upon the logic of Mueller's own argument against Stone:
If Trump knew what Wikileaks had, and when they would release it, there would be no reason to ask Stone to find this out.
Those communication channels would have already existed,

"Russia used Republican political operative Paul Manafort and the WikiLeaks website to try to help now-U.S. President Donald Trump win the 2016 election, a Republican-led Senate committee said in its final review of the matter on Tuesday.
WikiLeaks played a key role in Russia’s effort to assist Republican Trump’s campaign against Democrat Hillary Clinton and likely knew it was helping Russian intelligence, said the 966-page report, which is likely to be the most definitive public account of the 2016 election controversy.

The report found President Vladimir Putin personally directed the Russian efforts to hack computer networks and accounts affiliated with the Democratic Party and leak information damaging to Clinton."

 

[Athanasius68]

Senate committee concludes Russia used Manafort, WikiLeaks to boost Trump in 2016

Russia used Republican political operative Paul Manafort and the WikiLeaks website to try to help now-U.S. President Donald Trump win the 2016 election, a Republican-led Senate committee said in its final review of the matter on Tuesday.

www.reuters.com

The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence alleged Manafort collaborated with Russians, including oligarch Oleg Deripaska and “Russian intelligence officer” Konstantin Kilimnik, before, during, and after the election.

"The panel found Manafort’s role and proximity to Trump created opportunities for Russian intelligence, saying his “high-level access and willingness to share information with individuals closely affiliated with the Russian intelligence services... represented a grave counterintelligence threat.”"

And they also could not conclude why he did what he did.

"Russia used Republican political operative Paul Manafort and the WikiLeaks website to try to help now-U.S. President Donald Trump win the 2016 election, a Republican-led Senate committee said in its final review of the matter on Tuesday.
WikiLeaks played a key role in Russia’s effort to assist Republican Trump’s campaign against Democrat Hillary Clinton and likely knew it was helping Russian intelligence, said the 966-page report, which is likely to be the most definitive public account of the 2016 election controversy.

The report found President Vladimir Putin personally directed the Russian efforts to hack computer networks and accounts affiliated with the Democratic Party and leak information damaging to Clinton."

All you are doing here is arguing here is that Russia was screwing with the election.
Which as President Obama himself said during the summer of 2016, Russia does all the time.

The allegation that caused the great scandal was that Trump was conspiring with Russia in those efforts.
Which as Mueller and the Senate said, it coud not be established that it happened.
And as Durham has shown, there was no real credible evidence that it had occurred.
And that what drove the story was Clinton campaign political documents (ie steele dossier).

 

[Athanasius68]

So, you are claiming obstruction of justice is only a crime if you are successful? LOL!

No, I am saying that the claims that Mueller could not establish that a Trump/Russia conspiracy because of obstruction, is false.
As Mueller himself testified, he conducted his investigation unhindered from the WH.

The allegations of attempted obstruction by Mueller, are of course very weak, That is why the Biden DOJ hasn't brought them forth, despite all the excitement by progressives it could be done once Trump was out of office.
Its also why Congress (with a much lower threshhold for conviction) never attempted to impeach over it.

 

[Athanasius68]

No you didn't. Why are you blatantly posting lies? What you DID post was immediately and directly contradicted with facts.

Trump tried to obstruct the investigation. This is indisputable.

The claim was that Mueller could not establish a conspiracy because of obstruction.
Attempted obstruction, is of course, not actual obstruction.
Mueller could not establish a conspiracy because it didn't happen.

 

[Athanasius68]

I remember that citation and there's a BIG problem with your claim. You cited questions that did not ask him if his investigation was hindered. They asked other questions with different answers. No, Mueller never said what you are claiming. Go back and look at what you cited, it's not what you think it is.

That was the question.

 

[Athanasius68]

About what you just posted, any part of it. Do you believe Mueller?

I guess so. I don;t think he lied anywhere.
He could not establish a conspiracy between Trump/Russia. I am not the one who who has generally tried to turn that phrase into something other than the conspiracy did not happen.

 

[TomFitz]

I cited Mr. Mueller testimony where before Congress when he said his investigation was unhindered.
Don't know what else to tell you.

The reason why we hear recycled right wing claims on Trump/Russia charade is because they have been shown to be correct. The recycled Left wing claims keep being shown as false.

That isn’t true at all.

All the recycled right wing claims were false to begin with, and remain so today.

But it has been a long standing custom in right wing trash media circles to recycle old bomb throwing claims and bogus allegations on the expectation that the target audience has a short attention span.

This isn’t anything new. Right wing media has been doing it for twenty years.

I remember how the right wing trash blog NewsMax peddled a fake story about an imaginary “terrorists training camp” at a place called Salman Pak in Iraq. This was a scare story designed to scare the talk radio right and build support for Mr Bush’s war in Iraq. It was part of the White House’s marketing campaign which was enthusiastically embraced and fulsomely exaggerated by almost every right wing media outlet.

The Salman Pak story stayed mainly with NewMax, although Fox probably parroted it, and the talk radio guys all did.

Of course, the story was a total fake, as much of the Bush White House’s sales pitch was.

But that didn’t stop NewMax from peddling it to its audience no less than four times, each time describing it as “breaking news”/

Since then, I’ve seen that pattern repeated more or less regularly in right wing media.

It has been rampant in the trump era.

 

[soap box]

That was the question.

Did Trump and His Team Successfully Obstruct Mueller’s Investigation?

As a result of obstructive efforts and other practical obstacles, Mueller’s team was unable to complete many of their intended investigative steps.

www.justsecurity.org

"Mueller wrote: “the investigation established that several individuals affiliated with the Trump Campaign lied to the Office, and to Congress, about their interactions with Russian-affiliated individuals and related matters. Those lies materially impaired the investigation of Russian election interference.”

Mueller found “substantial evidence” to support multiple counts of obstruction of justice, including 10 episodes involving President Donald Trump interfering with the investigation.

Mueller also noted that former campaign chairman Paul Manafort “lied to the Office and the grand jury concerning his interactions and communications with Konstantin Kilimnik about Trump Campaign polling data and a peace plan for Ukraine.” According to the Mueller report, the FBI assessed that Kilimnik has “ties to Russian intelligence.” Manafort’s lies about providing polling data prevented Mueller from fully understanding the purpose of delivering the information to Kilimnik."

And trump would not talk.

Read the second half of the Mueller report. It's all about obstruction.

Stop trying to fool the weak minded with your revision of history.

 

[TomFitz]

I guess so. I don;t think he lied anywhere.
He could not establish a conspiracy between Trump/Russia. I am not the one who who has generally tried to turn that phrase into something other than the conspiracy did not happen.

No, but he documented a pattern of regular communication and coruination between the two going back to 2015.

A conspiracy was never necessary.

The Russians had owned trump for years. He was the crooked loudmouth real estate developer that they had been laundering money through for years. Russian banks and Russian affiliate banks were the only people who would lend trump money. And trump always needed (s) money.

Besides, the Russians knew that Trump was untrustworthy, unreliable, inpulsive. He could not be trusted or relied on. So there was no point in colluding with someone like that .

But he could be used. As an agent of chaos, trump was ideal. He took a country divided on racial lines (and in denial about it) supercharged it, and reveled in it.

One doesnt’ collude with a guy like trump, you tell him what to do. Maybe he’ll do what he’s told. Maybe not. But what he does do, in the realm of divisiveness and petty nonsense served Moscow’s purpose.

The collusion aspect was handled by cut outs. Roger Stone, chief among them.

He plead to it, and his activities in coordinating the used of the Russians hacked DNC emails is in the Report.

BTW, not one of the factual conclusions of the Mueller Report was ever discredited, refuted or contradicted.

The players and their connections and communications with Moscow are all documented and accurate.

”Collusion delusion” is a slogan for simple minds. Nothing more.

 

[Deuce]

No, I am saying that the claims that Mueller could not establish that a Trump/Russia conspiracy because of obstruction, is false.

Now it sounds like you're saying obstruction of justice becomes legal if it is successful. If you successfully hide a crime, they can't prove that crime, therefore you claim there's no obstruction? LOL!

As Mueller himself testified, he conducted his investigation unhindered from the WH.

That is not what he said. He outlined obstruction.

The allegations of attempted obstruction by Mueller, are of course very weak, That is why the Biden DOJ hasn't brought them forth, despite all the excitement by progressives it could be done once Trump was out of office.

Goalpost shift again, lol. You don't get to cite Mueller and then also say he's a liar.

Its also why Congress (with a much lower threshhold for conviction) never attempted to impeach over it.

Congress' threshold for conviction is actually much higher because there are more than 34 Republicans in the Senate.

 

[Deuce]

I guess so. I don;t think he lied anywhere.
He could not establish a conspiracy between Trump/Russia. I am not the one who who has generally tried to turn that phrase into something other than the conspiracy did not happen.

Mueller says Trump obstructed his investigation.

 

[Athanasius68]

Now it sounds like you're saying obstruction of justice becomes legal if it is successful. If you successfully hide a crime, they can't prove that crime, therefore you claim there's no obstruction? LOL!

Obstruction of justice requires a "corrupt intent."
Trump had the authority to have Mueler. Since he did not conspire with Russia, he had no "corrupt intent" when he thought about cashiering Mueller.

That is not what he said. He outlined obstruction.

Theoretical obstruction.

Goalpost shift again, lol. You don't get to cite Mueller and then also say he's a liar.

I didn't say Mueller was a liar. I cited his testimony before Congress that his investigation was unhindered by the WH.

Congress' threshold for conviction is actually much higher because there are more than 34 Republicans in the Senate.

 

[Athanasius68]

Did Trump and His Team Successfully Obstruct Mueller’s Investigation?

As a result of obstructive efforts and other practical obstacles, Mueller’s team was unable to complete many of their intended investigative steps.

www.justsecurity.org

"Mueller wrote: “the investigation established that several individuals affiliated with the Trump Campaign lied to the Office, and to Congress, about their interactions with Russian-affiliated individuals and related matters. Those lies materially impaired the investigation of Russian election interference.”

Mueller found “substantial evidence” to support multiple counts of obstruction of justice, including 10 episodes involving President Donald Trump interfering with the investigation.

Mueller also noted that former campaign chairman Paul Manafort “lied to the Office and the grand jury concerning his interactions and communications with Konstantin Kilimnik about Trump Campaign polling data and a peace plan for Ukraine.” According to the Mueller report, the FBI assessed that Kilimnik has “ties to Russian intelligence.” Manafort’s lies about providing polling data prevented Mueller from fully understanding the purpose of delivering the information to Kilimnik."

And trump would not talk.

Read the second half of the Mueller report. It's all about obstruction.

Stop trying to fool the weak minded with your revision of history.

Mueller indeed tried mightily in the 2nd half of his report to prove obstruction.
But he failed.

 

[Athanasius68]

That isn’t true at all.

All the recycled right wing claims were false to begin with, and remain so today.

But it has been a long standing custom in right wing trash media circles to recycle old bomb throwing claims and bogus allegations on the expectation that the target audience has a short attention span.

This isn’t anything new. Right wing media has been doing it for twenty years.

I remember how the right wing trash blog NewsMax peddled a fake story about an imaginary “terrorists training camp” at a place called Salman Pak in Iraq. This was a scare story designed to scare the talk radio right and build support for Mr Bush’s war in Iraq. It was part of the White House’s marketing campaign which was enthusiastically embraced and fulsomely exaggerated by almost every right wing media outlet.

The Salman Pak story stayed mainly with NewMax, although Fox probably parroted it, and the talk radio guys all did.

Of course, the story was a total fake, as much of the Bush White House’s sales pitch was.

But that didn’t stop NewMax from peddling it to its audience no less than four times, each time describing it as “breaking news”/

Since then, I’ve seen that pattern repeated more or less regularly in right wing media.

It has been rampant in the trump era.

It was the baseless claims of conspiracy between Trump/Russia by Democrats and progressives that caused those issues over the last several years.
Refuting them is scarcely bomb throwing.

 

[soap box]

Obstruction of justice requires a "corrupt intent."
Trump had the authority to have Mueler. Since he did not conspire with Russia, he had no "corrupt intent" when he thought about cashiering Mueller.



Theoretical obstruction.


I didn't say Mueller was a liar. I cited his testimony before Congress that his investigation was unhindered by the WH.

What do these words in the Mueller report mean?
" Those lies materially impaired the investigation of Russian election interference.”

Do you know who he was talking about?

Mueller indeed tried mightily in the 2nd half of his report to prove obstruction.
But he failed.

Which count do you disagree with? How can you read that and say he failed? Which part failed?

 

[Deuce]

Obstruction of justice requires a "corrupt intent."

Check.

 

[Slyfox696]

The claim was that Mueller could not establish a conspiracy because of obstruction.
Attempted obstruction, is of course, not actual obstruction.
Mueller could not establish a conspiracy because it didn't happen.

Literally everything you just said is pure nonsense.

 

[j brown's body]

Durham has absolutely shown that the Clinton camapign spun a story of Trump/Russia collusion (Sussman, Steele) that the FBI leadership was more than willing to lap up.

There were indeed people who argued that his investigation would bring down Clinton Obama et. al.
However, Barr had shot down that notion long ago when he said they were not subjects of the investigation


Horowitz slammed the FBI in how it handled the investigation.
He said there was a very slim reed for a predicate to start it.

Durham has revealed that that slim reed was being fed by the Clinton campaign to the FBI.

The Horowitz report found that the FBI investigation into Trump-Russia was justified.