[W:914,1223] Robert Mueller's report is out

[Media_Truth]

Barr is a hack.

Barr's release: "The investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in it's election interference activities"

The actual quote:
The investigation also identified numerous links between the the Russian government and the Trump campaign. Although the investigation established that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome, and that the Campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts, the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in it's election interference activities"

He cut a sentence in half! Basically, it's 100% proven that the Trump campaign cooperated and coordinated with the Russian government. But because the Russian government committed the crimes, and it couldn't be established that the Trump campaign explicitly asked for those crimes to be committed.. it was technically not criminal.

That's quite an interpretation by Barr. :roll:

 

[Plus Ultra]

The Russians did NOT want Ms. Clinton elected to the office of President because they knew that they couldn't "play" her anywhere near as effectively as they thought that they could "play" any of the Republican candidates - especially Mr. Trump.

Although Hillary seems less easily "playable", wouldn't she be more susceptible if we accept the facts that 1) the Russians had all her secret emails, the materials from Podesta's laptop, plus the hacked DNC server material; and 2) the Russians had the same materials on Trump as Mueller found?

Seems to me Hillary became much more vulnerable to Russian coercion as a consequence of their hacking into her emails and the DNC server. I don't understand why someone like Putin, who was a high ranking KGB officer and knows how to use intelligence, would opt to use what was hacked from Hillary and the DNC as Russians allegedly did.

 

[StillServing]

Never said he was. McGahn refused to do his illegal order. I see you are going to take the tactic of believing that bank robbers don't belong in prison if they were unsuccessful in obtaining the money. Brilliant strategy there Ath. Brilliant.

Illegal how? At best you have a split decision of lawyers who argue among themselves on the power of the Presidency in that regard. The President still retains Article 2 powers. McGahn stated that President Trump stated that "Mueller had to go" citing that there were conflicts of interest. And...there is very easily a case that could be made that the President was correct on the conflict of interest. Mueller was appointed only after a friend of his was fired from the FBI, Mueller's #2 was a person who was at Clinton's election-night party and multiple lawyers on the team gave money to the Clinton campaign and one even defended the Clinton Foundation.

But if you read the report, you notice that McGahn's statement quoted in the report isn't actually clear. McGahn claims that President Trump called him twice that night in question. But a footnote to the report notes that only one phone call exists on the phone records. A minor discrepancy? Perhaps, but when the biggest bombshell (which apparently was a dud when it was first exposed nearly 9 months ago) of the report hangs on the exact words the President actually told McGhahn, then we have to realize that these discrepancies matter.

And then again, even if McGahn is correct, we go back to the fact that even the best legal minds in our nation differ as to whether the President had the authority to fire a Special Counsel appointed by the executive branch.

 

[StillServing]

Focusing on 2016, because it happened to be low, while ignoring all the other years shows your bias.
You can’t cherrypick the periods that enhance your argument. Don’t use data the way a drunk uses a lamppost, for support not enlightenment.
As one can see from the corresponding graph, each of quarters in 2018 were lower than previous years.

I'm not focusing on 2016 at all. I'm focusing on the strong economy that we have had during this administration.

Nor is using 2016 "cherry-picking." I used it because it was the last year of the previous administration. If, as some have erroneously argued, the economic condition of the country is due to the previous administration, then we should have seen that administration's last year's economic progress ramping up to what we have now. But that simply isn't the case. In terms of wage growth, employment, and GDP growth, the last year of the previous administration shows that the economy had lost momentum--strongly indicating that the policies of the pro-economy policies of the last administration (what were those, again?) had ceased to inspire continued economic growth.

As far as revenues are concerned, I noticed you did not include the last 3 month's data. If you include those you realize that Government revenues the past 15 months were actually larger than the same time period preceding the tax reform bill's passage.

 

[SLC]

Illegal how? At best you have a split decision of lawyers who argue among themselves on the power of the Presidency in that regard. The President still retains Article 2 powers. McGahn stated that President Trump stated that "Mueller had to go" citing that there were conflicts of interest. And...there is very easily a case that could be made that the President was correct on the conflict of interest. Mueller was appointed only after a friend of his was fired from the FBI, Mueller's #2 was a person who was at Clinton's election-night party and multiple lawyers on the team gave money to the Clinton campaign and one even defended the Clinton Foundation.

But if you read the report, you notice that McGahn's statement quoted in the report isn't actually clear. McGahn claims that President Trump called him twice that night in question. But a footnote to the report notes that only one phone call exists on the phone records. A minor discrepancy? Perhaps, but when the biggest bombshell (which apparently was a dude when it was first exposed nearly 9 months ago) of the report hangs on the exact words the President actually told McGhahn, then we have to realize that these discrepancies matter.

And then again, even if McGahn is correct, we go back to the fact that even the best legal minds in our nation differ as to whether the President had the authority to fire a Special Counsel appointed by the executive branch.

And Mueller interviewed for Comey's job the night before he took the Special Prosecutor's job.

 

[SLC]

Although Hillary seems less easily "playable", wouldn't she be more susceptible if we accept the facts that 1) the Russians had all her secret emails, the materials from Podesta's laptop, plus the hacked DNC server material; and 2) the Russians had the same materials on Trump as Mueller found?

Seems to me Hillary became much more vulnerable to Russian coercion as a consequence of their hacking into her emails and the DNC server. I don't understand why someone like Putin, who was a high ranking KGB officer and knows how to use intelligence, would opt to use what was hacked from Hillary and the DNC as Russians allegedly did.

Please don't inject logic into their argument. :lol:

 

[SLC]

Do you mean other than Trump ordering McGahn to fire Mueller?

Or how several staff members of the administration ignored trump's orders to obstruct?

So if Trump really wanted to fire Mueller what would stop him from doing it himself?

 

[Plus Ultra]

Please don't inject logic into their argument. :lol:

But this is fundamental and an incongruity I just can't get over; Hillary would be much more susceptible to Putin's blackmail if we accept as true that 1) the Russians had all her secret emails, the materials from Podesta's laptop, plus the hacked DNC server material; and 2) the Russians had everything Mueller found on Trump. It makes absolutely no sense for Putin to look at all the 'dirt' he had on Hillary and all the 'dirt' he had on Trump (presuming its everything Mueller got), weigh the two piles of 'dirt' and figure what he had on Hillary was not as bad as what he had on Trump.

With everything we now know about Trump's ineffective, collusive dealings (there wouldn't have been any obstruction stuff), do you really think if Putin had the unquestionable proof (we all now have from Wikileaks) of Hillary's "pay to play", record of her receipt of debate questions, emails with journalists and news anchors coordinating mainstream media attacks on Trump, that uranium deal, unusual DoS endorsements not just for this deal, but so too for many extraordinary weapons sales to Middle Eastern powers following generous donations to her Foundation, arrangements and payments for the dossier -if Putin really had all of that stuff, he would intelligently figure he'd do better thwarting Hillary and leaning on Trump? You don't think Putin would have neatly arranged each little 'nugget' of compromising Hillary material he had to coerce concessions from her under threat of disclosure?

And then there's the issue of Trump's submission. If Trump made some deal with Putin so he could defeat Hillary, evidently it worked, so Trump has to deliver. Presumably Putin has evidence of this deal and Trump knows it, so how come we don't see at least a more accommodating US policy towards Russia since Trump took power? That Magnitsky Act the Russian lawyer at the Trump Tower meeting brought up, remains in full force and has even been expanded; economic sanctions for the annexation of Crimea have not been relaxed, they been extended and increased; the US has even sent lethal weapons and military technicians to train Ukranians how to use them; NATO, led by the US now deploys more armament and troops in the Baltic States and Poland, ships in the Sea of Azov; this is not the conduct of a beholden and submissive puppet in Putin's hands! And we know these are the sort of things Putin would ask Trump to yield on, they rile him no end in constant declamations.

My suspicion is that Putin never saw the 'dirt' on Hillary, Gucifer doesn't work for his GRU, Assange is saying the truth, he didn't get the stuff from Russians.

 

[poweRob]

Illegal how? At best you have a split decision of lawyers who argue among themselves on the power of the Presidency in that regard. The President still retains Article 2 powers. McGahn stated that President Trump stated that "Mueller had to go" citing that there were conflicts of interest. And...there is very easily a case that could be made that the President was correct on the conflict of interest. Mueller was appointed only after a friend of his was fired from the FBI, Mueller's #2 was a person who was at Clinton's election-night party and multiple lawyers on the team gave money to the Clinton campaign and one even defended the Clinton Foundation.

But if you read the report, you notice that McGahn's statement quoted in the report isn't actually clear. McGahn claims that President Trump called him twice that night in question. But a footnote to the report notes that only one phone call exists on the phone records. A minor discrepancy? Perhaps, but when the biggest bombshell (which apparently was a dud when it was first exposed nearly 9 months ago) of the report hangs on the exact words the President actually told McGhahn, then we have to realize that these discrepancies matter.

And then again, even if McGahn is correct, we go back to the fact that even the best legal minds in our nation differ as to whether the President had the authority to fire a Special Counsel appointed by the executive branch.

Had McGahn followed Trump's order to fire Mueller, he'd knew he'd be headed to prison just like Nixon's AG John Mitchell did for his obstruction.

 

[poweRob]

So if Trump really wanted to fire Mueller what would stop him from doing it himself?

Here... let me do some very basic homework for you.

Can Trump Fire Mueller?

Q: Can President Donald Trump fire special counsel Robert Mueller?

A: Not directly. Only the deputy attorney general who appointed Mueller can fire him and only for cause. But Trump could fire the DAG, or order the special-counsel regulations repealed and fire Mueller himself.​

 

[Obscurity]

Yes. After he's defeated at the polls. That's how democracy works.
Used to be that the losers of such elections understood that.
They don't seem to anymore.

So you embrace authoritarianism. No surprise there.

 

[StillServing]

Had McGahn followed Trump's order to fire Mueller, he'd knew he'd be headed to prison just like Nixon's AG John Mitchell did for his obstruction.

Except, that isn't why Mitchell went to prison (firing the special counsel). In part, Mitchell went to prison for authorizing the wire-tapping of US citizens. Hmmm...where have we heard of that happening in this whole mess?!?!?

 

[StillServing]

Here... let me do some very basic homework for you.

Can Trump Fire Mueller?

Q: Can President Donald Trump fire special counsel Robert Mueller?

A: Not directly. Only the deputy attorney general who appointed Mueller can fire him and only for cause. But Trump could fire the DAG, or order the special-counsel regulations repealed and fire Mueller himself.​

Or, he could have asked the Deputy AG to fire him. Which is what McGahn asserts President Trump asked him to do--tell "Rod" that Mueller needs to go due to conflict of interests.

 

[Plasmaball]

Really? The report is a conclusion of a criminal investigation....Was Trump charged with collusion, or obstruction?

It's the end? Then what are the 14 referrals cupcake?
You want to go over why Mueller didnt charge him...I'll hold your hand if you want little guy

 

[Buzz62]

So you embrace authoritarianism. No surprise there.

Huh? Are you drunk? Or are you really so butt-hurt that you will say any completely stupid thing to oppose Trump?
You have the privilege of living in a democratic society. Try to embrace that.

 

[Obscurity]

Huh? Are you drunk? Or are you really so butt-hurt that you will say any completely stupid thing to oppose Trump?
You have the privilege of living in a democratic society. Try to embrace that.

Privilege? As if saying since we have a moderately democratic society is enough, we should not strive for better?

Trump is DEFYING congressional oversight and acting like a dictator. He is refusing congress their due authority. He has obstructed justice, or tried to, in many cases.

And you laud him.

 

[Buzz62]

Privilege? As if saying since we have a moderately democratic society is enough, we should not strive for better?

Trump is DEFYING congressional oversight and acting like a dictator. He is refusing congress their due authority. He has obstructed justice, or tried to, in many cases.

And you laud him.

Oh get off the pot. You had your great investigation and it produced no indictments. ZERO!
Frankly I think the Democrats are showing the entire world what whiny little bitches they all are.

 

[Obscurity]

Oh get off the pot. You had your great investigation and it produced no indictments. ZERO!
Frankly I think the Democrats are showing the entire world what whiny little bitches they all are.

And conservatives are showing the world how authoritarian and autocratic they are. Bitches is right.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Which means that the Russians got a whack of uranium.
I understand it can be refined to produce fuel for nuclear weapons.
Not a good strategic move if you believe the Russians are some sort of adversay...is it now.

The minor point that you are overlooking is that the Uranium that the Russians got was NOT "American Uranium", in fact, what the Russians got was the right to dig ore out of the ground.

All that the US government could do would have been to forbid the transfer of Canadian owned but US located assets to Rosprom and the US government could do absolutely nothing whatsoever to prevent the transfer of Canadian owned but Tajikistan located assets to Rosprom.

You also, very conveniently, over look the fact that Ms. Clinton (very likely) didn't even have anything whatsoever to do with the approval of the sale.

However, since I take it that your position is that the US government is the supreme governing body on the Earth and has the legal and constitutional authority to dictate what any other country may, or may not, do I can understand your position.

In our society one is innocent until proven guilty.
I sort of subscribe to that.

Actually that is NOT quite correct.

In the entirety of the common law tradition countries one is CONSIDERED TO BE "innocent" until proven guilty in a court of law. What that means is that the fact that a person has been accused of a crime is NOT DEPRIVED of any rights simply because they were accused.

There have been many cases where the accused was NOT "proven guilty in a court of law" (think OJ Simpson for one) but where the accused much more than likely actually did the deed that they were accused of doing. Equally there are a lot of cases where the accused WAS "proven guilty in a court of law" (see "List of exonerated death row inmates") but where the accused actually did not do the deed that they were accused (and convicted) of doing and for which, in come cases, they were actually executed.

Now I have no problem with that (accurate) rendition of "innocent until proven guilty". In fact I apply it to BOTH "Their Guys" and to "Our Guys".

Unfortunately that is NOT how "innocent until proven guilty" is applied by a very large section of the American PUBLIC today. The way that "innocent until proven guilty" is applied by a very large section of the American PUBLIC today is "If one of ''Their Guys' is even rumoured to have potentially had what might possibly be thought to resemble something that could theoretically be confused with being a crime - that **P*R*O*V*E*S** **G*U*I*L*T**, but if one of 'Our Guys' is indicted, is tried, is convicted, is sentenced, and loses everyone of their appeals - that **P*R*O*V*E*S** **C*O*N*S*P*I*R*A*C*Y**." .

So, I'm prepared to take you at your word once I have a simple, one word, answer to the following:

1. Since Ms. Clinton has never been sentenced for committing a crime, let alone convicted of a committing a crime, let alone tried for committing a crime, let alone indicted for committing a crime, do you take the position that Ms. Clinton is NOT GUILTY of committing a crime?

NOTE:- The above question can be answered either "Yes.", "No.", "I don't know.", or "If you think that I'm going to actually and publicly admit that I subscribe to the proposition "If one of ''Their Guys' is even rumoured to have potentially had what might possibly be thought to resemble something that could theoretically be confused with being a crime - that **P*R*O*V*E*S** **G*U*I*L*T**, but if one of 'Our Guys' is indicted, is tried, is convicted, is sentenced, and loses everyone of their appeals - that **P*R*O*V*E*S** **C*O*N*S*P*I*R*A*C*Y**." - you are out of your mind."

Please pick only ONE of those four options.
​

2. If you believe that Ms. Clinton is NOT GUILTY, does that also mean that you believe that she is INNOCENT?

NOTE:- The above question can be answered either "Yes.", "No.", "I don't know.", or "If you think that I'm going to actually and publicly admit that I subscribe to the proposition "If one of ''Their Guys' is even rumoured to have potentially had what might possibly be thought to resemble something that could theoretically be confused with being a crime - that **P*R*O*V*E*S** **G*U*I*L*T**, but if one of 'Our Guys' is indicted, is tried, is convicted, is sentenced, and loses everyone of their appeals - that **P*R*O*V*E*S** **C*O*N*S*P*I*R*A*C*Y**." - you are out of your mind."

Please pick only ONE of those four options.
​

PS - When you say you "sort of subscribe" to something, does that mean that there are situations where you do NOT subscribe to that thing and, if so, what are those situations?

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Yes. After he's defeated at the polls.

It is NOT required to have an election in Canada to remove a Prime Minister from office.

Not only that but it is NOT even required to change the political affiliation of "the party in power" in order to remove a Prime Minister from office.

That's how democracy works.

Actually, my response is "how democracy works" IN CANADA.

Used to be that the losers of such elections understood that.
They don't seem to anymore.

And this current situation differs from the situation from 2008 to 2016?

How?

 

[StillServing]

Trump is DEFYING congressional oversight and acting like a dictator. He is refusing congress their due authority. <<SNIP>>.

Really? Why do you say that? What, because he is contemplating exerting executive privilege? Mind you that George Washington set the precedent for executive privilege and nearly every president has used that precedent throughout the history of the republic.

And a dictator? I wish that people would realize the danger in so carelessly using terms such as these. When you say that President Trump is acting like a dictator and others equate him with Hitler or Nazism, what you do not realize is how it cheapens the word.

I was in Iraq in April 2003 and saw first-hand the effects of what a dictatorship leaves behind. I combed through the pictures of tortures performed in Saddam's palaces and special police compounds. I talked with the citizens who had their family members taken away and never heard from again. I met a journalist who had his ear cut off when he published a story that was not appreciated by Saddam's son. What was the story? That the Iraqi soccer team played lack-lusterly at the Asian games.

When people cavalierly call Trump a Nazi, it lowers the bar on what the Nazis really did. I've been to Belgen-Bersen where Ann Frank died. I've been to Auschwitz and saw first-hand the scratches left behind in the gas chambers of hundreds of people who clawed with their fingernails the walls as they were being gassed to death.

Each time you and others use this over-the-top language to vilify a President you do not like, it makes the sacrifices of the men and women who died at the hands of real dictators and real Nazis become lost in a pool of political rhetoric.

Say you do not like President Trump. Say you think his policies are faulty. Say you think he has a propensity to over exaggerate nearly everything he says. Say he is a egomaniac and narcissistic. That's fine. But let's not cheapen the abuses that have been borne, and continue to be borne today, at the hands of real dictators.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Although Hillary seems less easily "playable", wouldn't she be more susceptible if we accept the facts that 1) the Russians had all her secret emails, the materials from Podesta's laptop, plus the hacked DNC server material; and 2) the Russians had the same materials on Trump as Mueller found?

While that IS a possibility, I'm more inclined to go with the Russian assessment of the situation which was that they would be better off with an incompetent inconsistent, inexperienced and unknowledgeable dolt who was hated by roughly half of the active American electorate occupying the White House than they would be with a competent, consistent, experienced and knowledgeable person who was hated by roughly half of the active American electorate occupying the White House.

Seems to me Hillary became much more vulnerable to Russian coercion as a consequence of their hacking into her emails and the DNC server. I don't understand why someone like Putin, who was a high ranking KGB officer and knows how to use intelligence, would opt to use what was hacked from Hillary and the DNC as Russians allegedly did.

You don't understand because you are neither a high ranking KGB officer nor have to develop a knowledge of how they work in order to complete professional assignments.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

But this is fundamental and an incongruity I just can't get over; Hillary would be much more susceptible to Putin's blackmail if we accept as true that 1) the Russians had all her secret emails, the materials from Podesta's laptop, plus the hacked DNC server material; and 2) the Russians had everything Mueller found on Trump. It makes absolutely no sense for Putin to look at all the 'dirt' he had on Hillary and all the 'dirt' he had on Trump (presuming its everything Mueller got), weigh the two piles of 'dirt' and figure what he had on Hillary was not as bad as what he had on Trump.

Your analysis is sound PROVIDED that you accept as a fact that what the Russians obtained was as "damning" as "Team Trump" wants you to believe it was.

Mitigating against that proposition is the FACT that "Team Trump" didn't release the "damning" material.

With everything we now know about Trump's ineffective, collusive dealings (there wouldn't have been any obstruction stuff), do you really think if Putin had the unquestionable proof (we all now have from Wikileaks) of Hillary's "pay to play", record of her receipt of debate questions, emails with journalists and news anchors coordinating mainstream media attacks on Trump, that uranium deal, unusual DoS endorsements not just for this deal, but so too for many extraordinary weapons sales to Middle Eastern powers following generous donations to her Foundation, arrangements and payments for the dossier -if Putin really had all of that stuff, he would intelligently figure he'd do better thwarting Hillary and leaning on Trump? You don't think Putin would have neatly arranged each little 'nugget' of compromising Hillary material he had to coerce concessions from her under threat of disclosure?

Again your analysis is sound PROVIDED that you accept as a fact that Mr. Putin is a total naif and a STUPID one at that.

I find that incredibly difficult to credit.

And then there's the issue of Trump's submission. If Trump made some deal with Putin so he could defeat Hillary, evidently it worked, so Trump has to deliver. Presumably Putin has evidence of this deal and Trump knows it, so how come we don't see at least a more accommodating US policy towards Russia since Trump took power? That Magnitsky Act the Russian lawyer at the Trump Tower meeting brought up, remains in full force and has even been expanded; economic sanctions for the annexation of Crimea have not been relaxed, they been extended and increased; the US has even sent lethal weapons and military technicians to train Ukranians how to use them; NATO, led by the US now deploys more armament and troops in the Baltic States and Poland, ships in the Sea of Azov; this is not the conduct of a beholden and submissive puppet in Putin's hands! And we know these are the sort of things Putin would ask Trump to yield on, they rile him no end in constant declamations.

Again your analysis is sound PROVIDED that you accept as a fact that the Russians would actually engage is something that was that easily discovered.

Personally I don't think that the Russians would be so bone-headed stupid as to rely on Mr. Trump being a RELIABLE "ally.

My suspicion is that Putin never saw the 'dirt' on Hillary, Gucifer doesn't work for his GRU, Assange is saying the truth, he didn't get the stuff from Russians.

You might be correct on the first, you are whistling in the dark on the second, the third is problematical (although it is quite likely that Mr. Assange does believe what he is saying), and the last in potentially true as far as Mr. Assange's DIRECT source is concerned.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

So, to sum up:

The odds that Mr. Putin is as stupid, inexperienced, incompetent, and rash as the supporters of Mr. Trump would have you believe he would have had to be for their narrative to be 100% correct, are incredibly poor.
The odds that Mr. Trump is the shining example of rational, well informed, consistent, probity that the supporters of Mr. Trump would have you believe he would have had to be for their narrative to be 100% correct, are incredibly poor.
The odds that the US would be as divided if Ms. Clinton had won the election as it is now that Mr. Trump has won the election are REALLY good.
The odds that it is in the interests of the Russians to have the American polity divided (and actively at each other's throats) are REALLY good.
The odds that the Russians inter-meddled in the 2016 election in order to increase the odds that their favoured candidate would win are REALLY good (in fact they are as close to 100% as you can get).
The odds that the Russians favoured Mr. Trump over Ms. Clinton because they thought that they could "play" Mr. Trump more successfully than then could "play" Ms. Clinton are REALLY good.
Regardless of whether there was any direct "collusion/conspiracy/coordination" between "Team Trump" and the Russians, the odds that the American people elected the President that the Russians wanted them to elect are REALLY good.
The rational conclusion from the above is that the Russians got what they wanted out of the 2016 elections AND the American people gave it to them.

 

[Plus Ultra]

Your analysis is sound PROVIDED that you accept as a fact that what the Russians obtained was as "damning" as "Team Trump" wants you to believe it was.

According to most of Trump's critics that material was damning enough to cost Hillary the election. There was a lot of information about Hillary and her dealings that revealed her in a poor light.

Mitigating against that proposition is the FACT that "Team Trump" didn't release the "damning" material.

They didn't have the material, remember it was the Russians who supposedly hacked Hillary's stuff.