[kayla.meyer_144]

Reading Volume I only which is about Russian interference. Very disturbing reading & only just started. Most disturbing is that Trump & Republicans think this interference is a good thing or at the very minimum dismiss it as a Nothing Burger. Inbetweeners meanwhile give lip service only proposing nothing of value. One guesses they all hope Putin will continue to provide assistance between now through 2020.
 
 

[Unknown Member]

Exactly

Its like a movie in which we are being invaded from within

[Unknown Member]

Invasion of the body snatchers

[katiemckee84_223]

Nothing burger thread #73

[ruszja]

I did.

First of all, I wish there were less redactions in the report. The bulk of the redactions is under the ‘Harm to Ongoing Matter’ justification. This mostly comes up in the sections that deal with Manafort, Corsi, Gates and in the portion that deals with the methods used by GRU to infiltrate various entities in the US. The indictment against all those russians and russian entities are a pure showboating move, those people will never see the inside of a US courtroom. Without this show indictment, we could have full transparency about the enemies efforts to infiltrate our system. The russian indictments serve no real purpose, so I wish they had the guts to drop it and make those portions of the report public.
Those other criminal cases against Corsi, Gates, Manafort are not at the core of what Mueller was supposed to investigate. Neither of these people plays a role in the administration, and neither of them is likely to play a role in the political future of the country. There is really very little ‘public interest’ justification in keeping those cases alive, without the cases the report could give a more complete picture, particularly about the actual contacts between the campaign and Wikileaks.

Overall, the report is a bit of a letdown. Much of the information was already public record, either through the prior indictments or, well because the stuff it describes wasn’t really a secret to anyne who pays attention. I did learn a couple of things that will inform my own approach to cybersecurity going forward. I just run the network for a couple of little entities that nobody including the russians cares about, still I am planning to make some changes (mostly moving anything potentially sensitive off consumer grade email services, enabling end-end encryption, restricting further who gets email accounts, requiring two-factor authentication etc.).

[ruszja]

Now, I am only at the end of Vol 1, but already the report has demolished most of the arguments you have been screaming about on this forum for the past 2+ years.

[b] Item 1 [/b]

‘The great super secret Trump Tower meeting and the wikileaks releases are criminal campaign finance violations because the Trump campaign received ‘something of value’ and it wasn’t reported as such’

Vol 1, Page 9 
[i]And our evidence about the June 9, 2016 meeting and WikiLeak’s releases of hacked materials was not sufficient to charge a criminal campaign-finance violation. Further, the evidence was not sufficient to charge that any member of the Trump Campaign conspired with representatives of the Russian government to interfere in the 2016 election.[/i]

Several pages on the legalities of why they are not a criminal campaign finance violation. And even if you dont like Kushner and Trump Jr., to charge them with a crime what they did has to be criminal, and it was not.

[b]Item 2 [/b]

‘The super secret Kislyak meetings with Sessions’

Vol 1, Page 10

[i]For example, the investigation established that interactions betweeen Russian Ambassador Kislyak and Trump Campaign officials at the candidate’s April 2016 foreign policy speech in Washington, D.C., and during the week of the Republican National Convention were brief, public and non-substantive. [/i]

Vol 1, Page 10

[i]The investigation also did not establish that a meeting between Kislyak and Sessions in September at Session’s Senate office included any more than a passing mention of the presidential campaign’ [/i]

[b]Item 3 [/b]

‘The fact that the republican platform was changed to favor russia is only explained by the fact that Trump is in Putins pocket’

Vol 1, Page 10

[i]And the investigation did not establish that one Campaign official’s efforts to dilute a portion of the Republican Party platform on providing assistance to Ukraine were undertaken at the behest of candidate Trump or Russia. [/i]

Oh wait, the change in the platform wasn’t initiated by Trumps team ? In fact, Trumps policy people had told their delegation at the RNC to have a hands-off approach on individual platform items.

[b]Item 4 [/b]

‘The campaign and the russians colluded’

Vol 1, Page 35
[i]While certain campaign volunteers agreed to provide the requested support (for example agreeing to set aside a number of signs), the investigation has not identified evidence that any Trump Campaign official understood the requests were coming from foreign nationals. [/i]

Vol 1, page 59

(Corsi at one point apparently claimed that he told Wikileaks to release the Podesta emails to blunt the damage from the ‘grab em by the possy’ tape. Turns out he is full of **** and didn’t do a thing)

[i] However, the Office has not identified any conference call participant, or anyone who spoke to Corsi that day, who says that they received non-public information about the tape from Corsi or having contacted a member of WikiLeaks on October7, 2016 after a conversation with Corsi. [/i]

[b]Item 5[/b]

‘If you can find the 30,000 missing emails’

Vol 1, Page 60

[i]Several individuals associated with the Campaign were contacted in 2016 about various efforts to obtain the missing Clinton emails and other stolen material in support of the Trump Campaign. Some of these contacts were met with skepticism and nothing came of them; others were pursued to some degree. The investigation did not find evidence that the Trump Campaign recovered any such Clinton emails, or that these contacts were part of a coordinated effort between Russia and the Trump Campaign. [/i]

Fun to read through the narrative about all those ‘contacts’. Most of it is just your normal wheeling and dealing that goes on if you try to do business abroad. Everyone ‘knows’ the prime ministers ex wifes private secretary and offers to make contacts for a fee. Also shows what a hapless boob Cohen was. He thought he was talking to some olympic weightlifter when his contact in Moscow just shared the same name.

The Papadopulos story is hilarious. The guy knew nothing, had no contacts but talked himself into a paid job as ‘foreign policy advisor’. ‘Amateur hour at Trump tower’ is is probably the best description of their foreign policy approach. All his ‘me me me’ attempts of setting up meetings were sandbagged by the campaign. The moment one of this low level russian contacts baits him with ‘dirt on hillary’, he goes running his mouth about it to anyone he comes in contact with. This dumbo managed to talk himself into getting convicted on a federal charge for something that wasn’t illegal in the first place. You can’t make this up.

[b]Item 6 [/b]

‘The evil mastermind Carter Page’

Vol 1, Page 95

The summary paragraph in the report reminds me of Hitchhikers guide to the galaxy: Mostly harmless.

[i]Russian intelligence officials had formed relationships with Page in 2008 and 2013 and Russian officials may have focused on Page in 2016 because of his affiliation with the Campaign. However, the investiation did not establish that Page coordinated with the Russian government in its efforts to interfere with the presidential election. [/i]

Here is what the russian foreign ministry had to say about him:
[i]Peskov wrote, “I have read about [Page]. Specialists say that he is far from being the main one. So I better not initiate a meeting in the Kremlin.” [/i]

[b]Item 7 [/b]

‘The great sinister meeting of the masterminds at Trump Tower’

Vol 1, Page 110

[i]The Russian attorney who spoke at the meeting, Natalia Veselnitskaya had previously worked for the Russian government and maintained a relationship with the government throughout this period of time. She claimed that funds derived from illegal activities in Russia were provided to Hillary Clinton and other Democrats. Trump Jr. requested evidence to support those claims, but Veselnitskaya did not provide such information. She and her associates then turned to a critique of the origins of the Magnitsky Act, a 2012 statute that imposed financial and travel sanctions on Russian officials and that resulted in a retaliatory ban on adoptions of Russian children. Trump Jr. suggested that the issue could be revisited when and if candidate Trump was elected. After the election, Veselnitskaya made additional efforts to follow up on the meeting but the Trump Transition Team did not engage. [/i]

IOW the Veselnitskaya baited Trump Jr. with the prospect of ‘dirt’ just to get a meeting but was sandbagged the moment it became clear to the trumpers that she was full of ****.
Even before the meeting, Manafort, who was obviously familiar with the russian way of doing business, [i]’warned the group the meeting would not yield vital information and that they should be careful'[/i] (Vol1, Page 115).
That super secret top level meeting was apparently so fruitless that Jared (the elf) Kushner texted his secretary to page him out of the meeting a few minutes in.

[b]Item 8[/b]

‘Super duper secret traiterous backchannel meetings between Sessions and Kislyak’

Vol 1 Page 124

[i]During Session’s speech, the took questions from the audience, once of which may have been asked by Kislyak. When the speeches concluded, several ambassadors lined up to greet the speakers. Gordon shook hands with Kislyak and reiterated that he had meant what he said in th speech about improving U.S.-Russia relations. Sessions separately spoke with between six and 12 ambassadors, including Kislyak. [/i]
(so why dont have as much excitement about Sessions talking to the ambassador from Brasil ?)
Oh, Gordon and Kislyak apparently ate from the same buffet. Collusion !!

Vol 1, Page 128

Sessions and Kislyak met in his senate office, but guess what, the meeting was unrelated to the election and with Sessions on the foreign relations committee, it was his job to meet with folks like Kislyak. So, a whole lot more of nothingness.

[ruszja]

[b]Item 9 [/b]
[b][/b]
‘Assange is a russian agent and was part of the operation to conceal the russian origin of the hacked data’

Vol1, Page 48
No, he simply didn’t know that dcleaks and Guccifer2.0 were russian operations. Remember, Guccifer2.0 and dcleaks operated from US based servers controlled via a VPN tunnel from St Petersburg. For anyone without the hindsight of the information the FBI NOW HAS, the data Assange received came from US servers and not from russia. His statements may well have been based on the best information available to him at the time.

[b]Item 10 [/b]
[b][/b]
‘Manafort is a russian agent and tried to get Trump to sign off on his ‘Ukraine peace plan’ that would benefit the russians’

Tuns out he didn’t.

Vol 1, Page 144

[i]The Office has not uncovered evidence that Manafort brought the Ukraine peace plan to the attention of the Trump Campaign or the Trump Administration. Kilimnik continued his efforts to promote the peace plan to the Executive Branch (e.g. U.S. Dept of State) into the summer of 2018. [/i]

[b]Item 11 [/b]

‘The Trump campaign were puppets of the russian administration’

Well, if that is the case, why did the russian government have such a hard time getting to talk to them after the election ? You would think that if Trump was Putins stooge, Putin would have just picked up his cellphone, called him and given marching orders. But no, the russians DIDN’T have a direct connection to the trump campaign. All the contacts prior to the election were low-level inconsequential folks on both sides who tried to do things mostly for their own personal and business benefit. After the election, Putin tried to get in contact with Trump via multiple different channels, some of those effort are rather entertaining in their amateurish approach.

Vol 1, Page 144

[i]As soon as news broke that Trump had been elected President, Russian government officials and prominent Russian businessmen began trying to make inroads into the new Administration. They appeared not to have preexisting contacts and struggled to connect with senior officials around the President-Elect. As explained below, those efforts entailed both official contact through the Russian Embassy in the United States and outreaches-santioned at high levels of the Russian government-through business rather than political contacts. [/i]

Putins congratulation message was sent to Hope Hicks from the gmail account of some embassy official.  Hicks forwared the email to Kushner, asking [i]”Can you look into this? Don’t want to get duped but don’t want to blow off Putin!” Kushner stated in Congressional testimony that he believed that it would be possible to verify the authenticity of the forwarded email through the Russiam Ambassador, whom Kushner had previously met in April 2016. Unable to recall the Russian Ambassador’s name, Kushner emailed Dimitry Simes of CNI, whom had consulted previously about Russia and asked “What is the name of the the Russian ambassador?” [/i]

Again, ‘amateur hour at Trump tower’. These people were not evil, they were inept.

Vol 1, Page 146

(interview with Petr Aven, president of Alfa bank)
[i]According to Aven, at his Q4 2016 one-on-one meeting with Putin, Putin raised the prospect that the United States would impose additional sanctions on Russian interests, including sanctions against Aven and/or Alfa-Bank. Putin suggested that Aven needed to take steps to protect himself and Alfa-Bank. Aven also testified that Putin spoke of the difficulty faced by the Russian government in getting in touch with the incoming Trump Administration. According ot Aven, Putin indicated he did not know with whom formally to speak and generally did not know the people around the President-Elect. [/i]

Funny, according to kpacks (and CNN, and SNLs) view of the world, Trump is Putins stooge and they whatsapp and instagram on their tablets every night to coordinate how to get some more of those emoluments rolling. And here we have Putin saying that he doesn’t even know how to get hold of Trump and talking to every banker and investment fund manager he knows to make a connection.

Interesting morsel in here. Turns out the Trump campaign wasn’t the only political campaign that received attention from the russians:

Vol 1, Page 148
[i]Nader developed contacts with both U.S. presidential campaigns during the 2016 election, and kept Dmitriev abreast of his efforts to do so…….Nader did not introduce Dmitriev to anyone associated with the Trump Campaign before the election. [/i]

So in other words, if one started digging, one would probably find contacts between the russians and the Clinton campaign. You would have thought that had Muellers investigation been about ‘election interference’ in a broader sense, he would have run down those leads. Suggests that the investigation wasn’t actually about ‘election interference’ but rather designed to dig through all the inner workings of the Trump campaign.

Another interesting morsel:

Vol 1, Page 149

[i]Soon after midnight on election night, Dmitriev messaged …… who was travelling to New York to attend the 2016 World Chess Championship…………….Dmitry Peskov, the Russian Federation’s press secretary, who was also attending the World Chess Championship…………… [/i]

All the ………. are labeled redacted ‘Investigative Technique’. It sure looks like the FBI/NSA has a backdoor into Whatsapp or Apple messenger if they can just read along when russian governmenet officials chat on their cellphones.

[ruszja]

I did learn a couple of things that made me laugh:

‘Why Hillary is so hopping mad at Julian Assange and wants him to executed at sunrise ?’

Vol 1, Page 44

[u]’She’s a bright, well connected, sadistic sociopath'[/u] (Assange about HRC)

Assange didn’t want Hillary out of the picture because he was doing the russians bidding. He wanted her to lose because he was concerned she would start another war. He simply preferred to have a Donald Trump hobbled by democrat opposition rather than a Hillary Clinton with full control of the government. Oh, and he didn’t want Hillary at the button that could launch a drone-strike on him.

What else did I learn. Well, I already knew that, but it reinforced my firm opinion on this:

If you are ever contacted by the FBI/DEA/ATF/Postal Inspector Service/OIC-HHS/OIC-Agriculture or any other federal law enforcement agency and asked to ‘come down and clear up some questions we have’: Don’t. 

The only answers a federal law enforcement agency should ever get from you is:
– please send your questions in writing to my attorney and I will see what I can do for you
– am I free to go ?
– I don’t recall when/where/what/who you are inquiring about
– I decline to answer this question based on my rights under the 5th amendment to the constitution.

Any answers you give them, should come from your attorney and be based on a paper or electronic record, never based on your recollection of anything. If they decide that what you remembered doesn’t fit with other evidence they already have, they charge you with false statements under USC 1001. Just don’t give them that opportunity.

Flynn, Papadopulos, Sessions etc. all got themselves in trouble by talking to the FBI and/or giving specific answers to questions that don’t deserve a specific answer.
FBI: Did you talk to anyone with a russian accent during the campaign.
Target: Yes.
FBI: Who did you talk to.
Target: I dont recall.
FBI: When did you talk to them.
Target: I dont recall.
Target: Any further questions ? Am I free to go ? Is this a custodial interrogation ?

[Unknown Member]

Oh wait, the change in the platform wasn’t initiated by Trumps team ? In fact, Trumps policy people had told their delegation at the RNC to have a hands-off approach on individual platform items.

2 words

Bull sheet

It just mysteriously got changed…… but no one did it

Trumps team
Said they didnt…… so omg that must be true

Are you fng seriousl?

[ruszja]

Quote from kpack123

Oh wait, the change in the platform wasn’t initiated by Trumps team ? In fact, Trumps policy people had told their delegation at the RNC to have a hands-off approach on individual platform items.

2 words

Bull sheet

It just mysteriously got changed…… but no one did it

Trumps team
Said they didnt…… so omg that must be true

Are you fng seriousl?

I see you didn’t actually read the report. Just leafed through it , saw all those Russian names and got frightened.

I am sorry for you.

[Unknown Member]

Save your pity for yourself

What I read was an attack on our political system by a foreign entity

Aided willing or unwilling, stupidity or just utter disregard could not be proved

I cited the above passage just to show how incredibly deluded you are

The republicans platform gets changed to a pro Russian stance…… something that has never happened before……. yet…. no one dit it

Couldnt be trumps team…… they said it wasnt

Sell you a Bridge on the moon

[Unknown Member]

…. and pure Julian Asange

It wasnt that he disliked Hillary

He just thought she was going to start a war

Hahahaha hahahaha hahahaha hahahaha

Bridge for sale on the moon

[kayla.meyer_144]

American Presidency for sale.

Its not specifically illegal so its all good.

But only if Prez is Republican.

[Unknown Member]

I guess the new immaculate conception is how the the republicans 2016 platform got changed to a pro-Russian stance

And

Julian Asange is probably worthy of a noble peace prize

Among other horsesheet

[kayla.meyer_144]

Trump is worthy of Nobel Peace Prize due to Trump preventing Obamas war with North Korea.

Love theKool-aid flavors.

[ruszja]

I figured you would be impervious to facts.
 
I think its a legitimate question whether his conduct fighting against the investigation was lawful, but anyone who actually reads Vol 1 and comes away convinced that there [u]was[/u] an organized coordination effort is delusional. Sure, this was dirty politics, talking to everyone and anyone who can give you dirt on your opponent. But that’s just how the game is played. The other side paid a spy to go to russia and collect salacious stories on their opponent which they then disseminated through press outlets friendly to their cause. That’s somehow morally ok I guess ?
 
I just hope they impeach him. Get started now, so that the actual trial is sometime next summer.

[katiemckee84_223]

Quote from fw

I figured you would be impervious to facts.

I think its a legitimate question whether his conduct fighting against the investigation was lawful, but anyone who actually reads Vol 1 and comes away convinced that there [u]was[/u] an organized coordination effort is delusional. Sure, this was dirty politics, talking to everyone and anyone who can give you dirt on your opponent. But that’s just how the game is played. The other side paid a spy to go to russia and collect salacious stories on their opponent which they then disseminated through press outlets friendly to their cause. That’s somehow morally ok I guess ?

I just hope they impeach him. Get started now, so that the actual trial is sometime next summer.

 
Good work on the above. The report shows that the 2 year Mueller investigation turns out to be essentially a 2 year long campaign [b]for Donald Trump’s 2020 presidential re-election[/b].
 
They did him a YUGE favor.

[ruszja]

Quote from Intermittent Blasting

Good work on the above. The report shows that the 2 year Mueller investigation turns out to be essentially a 2 year long campaign [b]for Donald Trump’s 2020 presidential re-election[/b].

They did him a YUGE favor.

Not sure about that. Vol 2 shows him as a petulent child. But anyone who has followed his embarrassing behavior throughout his presidency already knew that.

All the Dems would need to win is a reasonably well known and accomplished middle aged white guy. A little bit more than a flower pot. But they don’t seem to have that.

[katiemckee84_223]

They excel at going the wrong direction.
 
Incumbents are tough to beat. Even harder when your party is chaotic, at each other’s throats and divided itself. It makes primary season a good predictor of losing the general, as most sharp people realize.

[kayla.meyer_144]

Quote from fw

Quote from Intermittent Blasting

Good work on the above. The report shows that the 2 year Mueller investigation turns out to be essentially a 2 year long campaign [b]for Donald Trump’s 2020 presidential re-election[/b].

They did him a YUGE favor.

Not sure about that. Vol 2 shows him as a petulent child. But anyone who has followed his embarrassing behavior throughout his presidency already knew that.

All the Dems would need to win is a reasonably well known and accomplished middle aged white guy. A little bit more than a flower pot. But they don’t seem to have that.

Putin. Trump. Who cares. Both the same except Putin is more competent, nothing else to consider.
 
Putin for President. He’ swore adult than Trump.
 
 

[kayla.meyer_144]

The best defense of Trump is still a damning indictment of the man, the president, the administration and the GOP.
 
I am opposed to impeachment at this time unless several things change, all of which are unlikely. I think keeping Trump in office recognizes the reality of the Senate’s refusal to do anything regardless of Trump’s actions and I think it will do further harm to Republicans and the GOP itself by not creating a distraction of impeachment. That distraction is something Republicans desperately desire and we should not provide it.
 
[link=https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/22/opinion/theres-a-bigger-prize-than-impeachment.html]https://www.nytimes.com/2…-than-impeachment.html[/link]
 

At the end of the meeting, Mr. (Erskine) Bowles put a very direct question to Mr. Gingrich: Why were the Republicans intent on impeaching Bill Clinton? The speaker replied, Because we can.
 
Just as Speaker Gingrich did in 1998, Speaker Nancy Pelosi could direct the impeachment of President Trump because she can. Unlike in 1998, she stands on firmer ground: The Clinton case involved an egregious personal mistake and purported steps to cover it up; the Trump case involves an effort to thwart an investigation into a foreign attack on our democratic system.
 
Impeaching Bill Clinton was wholly a political decision; the substance mattered little in 1998. Two decades later, Democrats face almost the exact opposite dynamics.
 
For Democrats, leaving Donald Trump in office is not only good politics it is the best chance for fundamental realignment of American politics in more than a generation. Mr. Trump is three years into destroying what we know as the Republican Party. Another two years just might finish it off. Trumpism has become Republicanism, and that spells electoral doom for the party.
Mr. Trump has abandoned most of the core principles that have defined Republicans for the past century. Free trade abandoned for protectionism. Challenging our adversaries and promoting democracy replaced by coddling Russia and cozying up to dictators near and far. Fiscal conservatism replaced by reckless spending and exploding deficits. 
 
Whats left of the party is a rigid adherence to tax cuts, a social agenda that repels most younger Americans and rampant xenophobia and race-based politics that regularly interfere with the basic functioning of the federal government. 
 
Republicans today are the party of Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Tucker Carlson a coalition that, in the face of every demographic trend in America, will mean the long-term realignment of the federal government behind the Democrats.
 
Were not quite there yet but keeping President Trump in office is the best way to cement Trumpisms hold on the Republican Party.
 
Trumpism equals Republicanism as long as Donald Trump is at the top of the ticket. And a real shift to progressivism in America will be delivered by a devastating rebuke of the president and his party, a rebuke that will return control of the Senate and state houses across the nation. 

 
 

[kaldridgewv2211]

probably the best track is for the house to keep investigating and calling witnesses into public.  Didn’t it take like a year of hearings before tricky dicky resigned?  Drag everything into the public.  Get Sarah Slanders in front of the C-SPAN cameras and question he lines of BS.  There’s plenty of dirt.  Really drag them through their own filth.

[ruszja]

Quote from DICOM_Dan

probably the best track is for the house to keep investigating and calling witnesses into public.  Didn’t it take like a year of hearings before tricky dicky resigned?  Drag everything into the public.  Get Sarah Slanders in front of the C-SPAN cameras and question he lines of BS.  There’s plenty of dirt.  Really drag them through their own filth.

 
I hear investigating for investigations sake worked like a charm for the republicans in the days of the Benghazi hearings. Well, whatever keeps them from doing anything that would be of substance, like passing an infrastructure program.

[kaldridgewv2211]

It’s disingenuous at best to think this is even close to the same thing.  
 
Nothing will get done in congress until Mitch is gone.  He’s the hypocrite-in-chief of the Senate.

[Unknown Member]

The new company line

Jarrod Kushner

Russian meddling was just a few Facebook ads

Yep thats all absolutely nothing

No big deal

[Unknown Member]

Collusion between the political Left and the media in this country is a far greater threat than collusion with Russia ever has been or will be.

[Unknown Member]

Yes comrade you are right

[kayla.meyer_144]

[b]Amazing! In a heartbeat we’ve seen Republicans swivel on a dime first saying there was “no collusion!” to now saying there is absolutely nothing wrong with colluding with an American enemy for political gain! [/b]
 
[b] Alternate facts again, take your pick which you think Republicans really believe. [/b]
 
Answer, it all depends on that second as both are believed.
 
Truth is that malleable in their minds. And unimportant.
 
 

[kayla.meyer_144]

The criminal in office. First it never happened then it’s really not criminal after it was proven it in fact did happen.
 
Rule of Law, what a passe´ belief. 
 
[link=https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/04/23/unraveling-rudy-giulianis-talking-points-mueller-report]https://www.washingtonpos…-points-mueller-report[/link]

Reminder: The Trump campaigns initial statement about Russian contacts, via then-spokeswoman Hope Hicks, was a flat denial after a Russian government official was quoted as saying the Russians had contact with members of Trumps entourage before the election: It never happened. There was no communication between the campaign and any foreign entity during the campaign.
 
The [link=https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2019/politics/read-the-mueller-report/?tid=a_inl_auto]Mueller report[/link] delves into two key instances in which the Trump campaign may have accepted something of value from the Russian government. One is a meeting with Russian-affiliated individuals at Trump Tower in Manhattan in June 2016 that included key members of Trumps inner circle, including then-campaign chairman Paul Manafort, son-in-law Jared Kushner and Donald Trump Jr.
 
The other concerns the dissemination of hacked emails via WikiLeaks, but much of that section is redacted, so we will focus on the Trump Tower meeting.
 
Giuliani, in a phone interview with The Fact Checker, pointed out that the Mueller report said the special counsel decided not to prosecute the Trump campaign officials in part because [link=https://www.justsecurity.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/Muelller-Report-Redacted-Vol-I-Released-04.18.2019-Word-Searchable.-Reduced-Size.pdf#page=196]it could not determine whether the information had enough value[/link] (at least $25,000) to trigger a felony count, let alone the $2,000 threshold for any criminal charge. 
 
Mueller considered whether to bring charges of conspiracy to violate laws prohibiting foreign contributions, especially because emails made it clear to the participants that the meeting concerned information from Russian sources.
 
[i]We asked Giuliani about a famous case during the 2000 campaign when someone associated with the George W. Bush campaign [link=https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=122921&page=1]anonymously shipped[/link] a copy of a 120-page debate briefing book, along with a 60-minute videotape of mock debate sessions, to Tom Downey, then a congressman from Long Island who was assisting Al Gore with the debates and playing the role of Bush in mock debates. Downey immediately alerted the FBI; the person who leaked the debate prep materials was [link=http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/lozano/us-lozano030601indct.pdf]eventually charged[/link]and [link=https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/2001/09/01/woman-gets-1-year-for-stealing-bush-tape/21d2ffea-8f90-48dd-b1b5-7bda55bc4917/?utm_term=.4ed3302780b9]sentenced to a year in jail[/link].[/i]
 
[b]Indeed, the report also strongly suggests that Trump himself was worried that he had committed a crime. The report [link=https://www.justsecurity.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/Muelller-Report-Redacted-Vol-II-Released-04.18.2019-Word-Searchable.-Reduced-Size.pdf#page=162]says[/link] that the presidents conduct, apparently aiming at undermining the Mueller investigation, reflected potential uncertainty about whether certain events such as advance notice of WikiLeaks release of hacked information or the June 9, 2016, meeting between senior campaign officials and Russians could be seen as criminal activity by the President, his campaign, or his family.[/b]

[i] [/i]
 
[link=https://www.lawfareblog.com/mueller-report-demands-impeachment-inquiry]https://www.lawfareblog.c…ds-impeachment-inquiry[/link]
 

Here is, [link=https://www.lawfareblog.com/document-bill-barrs-prepared-remarks-press-conference-mueller-report]as William Barr might call it[/link], the bottom line: The [link=https://www.lawfareblog.com/document-mueller-report]Mueller report[/link] describes, in excruciating detail and with relatively few redactions, a candidate and a campaign aware of the existence of a plot by a hostile foreign government to criminally interfere in the U.S. election for the purpose of supporting that candidates side. It describes a candidate and a campaign who welcomed the efforts and delighted in the assistance. It describes a candidate and a campaign who brazenly and serially lied to the American people about the existence of the foreign conspiracy and their contacts with it. And yet, it does not find evidence to support a charge of criminal conspiracy, which requires not just a shared purpose but a meeting of the minds.
 
Here is the other bottom line: The Mueller report describes a president who, on numerous occasions, engaged in conduct calculated to hinder a federal investigation. It finds ample evidence that at least a portion of that conduct met all of the statutory elements of criminal obstruction of justice. In some of the instances in which all of the statutory elements of obstruction are met, the report finds no persuasive constitutional or factual defenses. And yet, it declines to render a judgment on whether the president has committed a crime.
 
The problem with this approach is that, under the current system, the options for checking a president who abuses his power to the degree that Trump has are functionally impeachment proceedings or nothing.
 
There are many factors here, but the main culprit is the [link=https://www.justice.gov/file/19351/download]Office of Legal Counsel (OLC)s 2000 memo[/link] against the indictment of a sitting presidentwhich itself builds on a [link=https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/4517361/092473.pdf]1973 OLC memo[/link], drafted during Watergate, which reached the same conclusion.
 
Muellers solution is to pass the question to Congress. He isnt especially subtle in doing so. He notes that a federal criminal accusation against a sitting President would potentially preempt constitutional processes for addressing presidential misconduct, then flags in a footnote the Constitutions clauses on impeachment and the OLC opinions discussion of the relationship between impeachment and criminal prosecution of a sitting president. [b]In other words, he is saying that he is not permitted to determine if the president committed a crime [/b]
 
Republicans dont want to touch the matter because the president is a member of their party. His agenda aligns with theirs on many issues, and they fear angering his base in a way that might imperil their own reelection.

 
 
 

[Unknown Member]

The republicans are the patriots of our country

[Unknown Member]

And Julian Asange

He should be an honorary citizen because as our boards mr positive glass half full guy claims

…..Asange was just anti Hillary because he was afraid she was going to start a world war

Russia is our best friend and thank god they helped us with a couple Facebook ads

[kayla.meyer_144]

Trump deserves the Nobel because he prevented that war with North Korea Obama was trying to start.
 
Yes, patriots all.

[Unknown Member]

Seriously

Only solution is vote these dirty pieces of sheet out

This is most corrupt administration in American history

I would not impeach trump

I would hold congressional hearings every few months for the next year

Remind the people what scum bags we have in office

Then vote these corrupt lying communist loving preeks out

[kayla.meyer_144]

Even redacted and despite Trump & enabling Republicans declaring the Mueller Report gives Trump a pass for conspiracy and obstruction, even as Trump & his handlers now loudly declare conspiracy with the Russians was actually done and is actually legal, the report is having a positive effect.
 
It is no longer “just Liberals” and Democrats holding our collective noses about Trump. It’s spreading as some Republicans leave the GOP fold and some are starting to call for impeachment.
 
[link=https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2019/04/24/if-this-is-new-normal-i-want-no-part-it-citing-trump-iowas-longest-serving-republican-leaves-party/]https://www.washingtonpos…publican-leaves-party/[/link]
 

Iowas longest-serving Republican legislator, state Rep. Andy McKean, ditched the GOP on Tuesday as he offered a searing renunciation of President Trump, saying he could no longer support Trump as the partys standard-bearer due to his unacceptable behavior and reckless spending.”
 
McKean revealed he would join the Democratic Party, a decision he described as a very difficult after spending nearly a half-century as a registered Republican and 26 years in the Legislature. But ultimately, he said, I feel as a Republican that I need to be able to support the standard bearer of our party.
 
And unfortunately, he said, he could not bring himself to support Trump.
 
McKean now joins the ranks of state Republican officials who have fled the party amid a divisive presidency and shifting political landscape. From Kansas to New Jersey,[link=https://www.governing.com/topics/politics/gov-california-kansas-party-switch-lawmaker.html] a slow succession of state lawmakers[/link] and officials, largely in suburban districts that have become less red, have both startled and appeased constituents by crossing the aisle, oftentimes citing Trumps rhetoric, policies and a disagreement with their partys responses to his behavior
 
McKeans announcement comes as Republicans, lawmakers or otherwise, have grappled with how to respond to the damning portrait of Trumps presidency presented in special counsel Robert S. Mueller IIIs report on Russian interference in the 2016 election. On Tuesday, a member of Trumps 2016 transition team published[link=https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/04/gop-staffer-advocates-trumps-impeachment/587785/]an essay in the Atlantic [/link]detailing why the report has led him to feel comfortable calling for Trumps impeachment, even as a longtime Republican.

 
[link=https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/04/gop-staffer-advocates-trumps-impeachment/587785/]https://www.theatlantic.c…ps-impeachment/587785/[/link]
 

Lets start at the end of this story. This weekend, I read Special Counsel Robert Muellers report twice, and realized that enough was enoughI needed to do something. Ive worked on every Republican presidential transition team for the past 10 years and recently served as counsel to the Republican-led House Financial Services Committee. My permanent job is as a law professor at the George Mason University Antonin Scalia Law School, which is not political, but where my colleagues have held many prime spots in Republican administrations.
 
I wanted to share my experience transitioning from Trump team member to pragmatist about Trump to advocate for his impeachment, because I think many other Republicans are starting a similar transition.
 
The Mueller report was that tipping point for me, and it should be for Republican and independent voters, and for Republicans in Congress. In the face of a Department of Justice policy that prohibited him from indicting a sitting president, Mueller drafted what any reasonable reader would see as a referral to Congress to commence impeachment hearings.
 

Depending on how you count, roughly a dozen separate instances of obstruction of justice are contained in the Mueller report. 

 

 

[Unknown Member]

Quote from Frumious

[b]Amazing! In a heartbeat we’ve seen Republicans swivel on a dime first saying there was “no collusion!” to now saying there is absolutely nothing wrong with colluding with an American enemy for political gain![/b]

?
 
Which Republicans say the latter?

[kayla.meyer_144]

Trump. Giuliani. 
 

I never said there was no collusion between the campaign. Or between people in the campaign,” Giuliani said on CNN’s “Cuomo Prime Time,” 

 
 

On Monday, he acknowledged that his son, Donald Trump Jr., met with a Russian lawyer in the hopes of receiving damaging information about Hillary Clinton:
[blockquote] [link=https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump][image]https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/874276197357596672/kUuht00m_normal.jpg[/image][/link] [link=https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump] Donald J. Trump@realDonaldTrump
[/link]

Most politicians would have gone to a meeting like the one Don jr attended in order to get info on an opponent. That’s politics!
[link=https://twitter.com/intent/like?tweet_id=886950594220568576] 93.4K[/link]
[link=https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/886950594220568576]10:07 AM – Jul 17, 2017[/link]

[/blockquote]

As news of the June 9, 2016, meeting, involving Trump Jr., Jared Kushner, his brother-in-law (who is now a senior adviser in the White House); and Paul Manafort, Trumps campaign chairman, began to trickle out last weekend, the presidents defenders initiated a 180-degree turn in their line of argument. [b]Gone was the claim there was no evidence of a collusion to be foundthat claim was untenable in light of the emails that Trump Jr. released, in which he was very clearly informed that the meeting was with a woman identified as a Russian government lawyer, and that the purpose was to give the Trump campaign damaging information about Clinton, because the Russian government backed Trump in the race.[/b]
 
[b]The new tactic was to normalize collusion[/b], arguing that in fact colluding with a foreign government in such a situation was neither nefarious nor illegal, and was in fact standard operating procedure. Jeanine Pirro, a Fox News host who has emerged as one of Trumps most dogged defenders, even said, If the devil called me and said he wanted to set up a meeting to give me opposition research on my opponent, Id be on the first trolley to hell to get it.
 

 
 
 

[ruszja]

Quote from Knob Creek Rye

Quote from Frumious

[b]Amazing! In a heartbeat we’ve seen Republicans swivel on a dime first saying there was “no collusion!” to now saying there is absolutely nothing wrong with colluding with an American enemy for political gain![/b]

?

Which Republicans say the latter?

Facts dont matter here.

[Unknown Member]

Did Guliani not say that?

Or was he just kidding

Like Mexico paying for a wall

Too funny

[kayla.meyer_144]

fw was speaking for himself and it was a brag. He already has said several times that Trump and all his faults, regardless of what they are, are and were a known matter so will not change any minds of his staunch supporters – like fw.
 
As fw bragged, “facts don’t matter” because fw believes in Trump’s alternate facts.
 
Oh yeah, and fw also argued that getting stolen information from an enemy country to tilt an election in Republican favor is fine with him as he sees no problem with doing that.
 
 

[Unknown Member]

And my favorite

Asange really just was afraid that Hillary was going to start a war

So he was a martyr for the cause

Yes I like that bull sheet answer the best

[ruszja]

Quote from kpack123

And my favorite

Asange really just was afraid that Hillary was going to start a war

So he was a martyr for the cause

Yes I like that bull sheet answer the best

 
Funny how you hang on to something I included as a funny aside and don’t address any of the other things I pointed out in the report. 
 
Oh, that’s because you didn’t read the report, just secondary reporting on what it says.

[btomba_77]

Slowly but surely.  Still struggling through near the start.   
 
Mostly I find myself referencing back in to the document when an interesting topic comes up.

[Unknown Member]

Oh wait now it was a funny aside

Yes just like the wall that Mexico was going to pay for

It was just a joke

[kayla.meyer_144]

Go over point by point in the report as if there would be an actual open dialogue and discussion about each & all revelations in the report? As if the report actually exonerates and proves Trump, his family & Administration innocent of all charges of abuse of power, collusion, obstruction, corruption and downright unworthiness of being president?

As if posting others analysis was somehow further proof of innocence?

Easter Bunny stuff. As example, the report itself opens with a statement that has already been minimized by Trump enablers and sycophants:
 

The Russian government interfered in the 2016 presidential election in sweeping and systematic fashion. 

 
According to at least 1 post and poster on AM and by Kushner, this “sweeping and systematic fashion” consisted of little more than a few Facebook accounts and posts. Honesty in discussing this report is not an expectation.
 
The report is damning, period. No way around that. There is no exculpatory material in the report I am reading. It is shameful. 
 
 

[Unknown Member]

Over time it will become more damning and more disgusting

Basically the trump team were traitors putting party over country

It will play out that way eventually

[Unknown Member]

No collusion.
No obstruction.
Sorry.

[kayla.meyer_144]

WHERE does the report say either of those? Even Giuliani says he never said there was no collusion. I haven’t found anywhere in the report where Mueller stated there was no collusion nor that there was no obstruction.
 
Sorry. 
 
 

[Unknown Member]

Keep hope alive.
The country is doing great.

[Unknown Member]

It actually does say no collusion because collusion is not defined in legal terms

It talks more about conspiracy

If my reading was correct

[Unknown Member]

First quarter GDP grew 3.2% just in case you want
talk about something important. Something people
care about. Are you unhappy with that. Do you want
to return to 0-1% growth? Will the libs campaign that
the economy is doing too well? There are too many jobs?

[ruszja]

Quote from kpack123

It actually does say no collusion because collusion is not defined in legal terms

It talks more about conspiracy

If my reading was correct

 
Yes. That’s what the report says. As there is no crime of ‘collusion’, the investigation looked at it under the broad concept of ‘conspiracy against the US’ (18 USC 371) and and under the ‘unregistered foreign agent’ (18 USC 951) provisions.
 
None was found.

[Unknown Member]

So the term collusion is basically a bait and switch argument

Since collusion is not defined legally it can really never occur (at least as criminal activity)

Im not a legal scholar but that is my understanding

[ruszja]

Quote from kpack123

So the term collusion is basically a bait and switch argument

Since collusion is not defined legally it can really never occur (at least as criminal activity)

Im not a legal scholar but that is my understanding

 
I dont think there was ever an official statement that the investigation was into ‘collusion’. That is something the press came up with. The goal of the investigation was to find out [i]’whether individuals associated with the Trump Campaign were coordinating with the Russian Government in its interference activities.’ [/i](Vol1, Page 1)
 
The answers are: Yes, russians did their thing. Yes, the trump campaign talked to everyone who came to them and offered help. No, there was no coordinated effort between the campaign and the russians to interfere in the election.
 
 

[kayla.meyer_144]

The first honest post about collusion.
 
No kpack, Mueller did not say Trump was innocent of collusion, fw’s explanation is more accurate.
 
Mueller explains about “collusion” in Vol I at the beginning, most all other “collusions” are descriptions of Trump’s twits and complaints and brags about “No collusion!” and such.
 

In evaluating whether evidence about collective action of multiple individuals constituted a crime, we applied the framework of conspiracy law, not the concept of collusion. In so doing, the Office recognized that the word collud[e] was used in communications with the Acting Attorney General confirming certain aspects of the investigations scope and that the term has frequently been invoked in public reporting about the investigation. But collusion is not a specific offense or theory of liability found in the United States Code, nor is it a term of art in federal criminal law. For those reasons, the Offices focus in analyzing questions of joint criminal liability was on conspiracy as defined in federal law. In connection with that analysis, we addressed the factual question whether members of the Trump Campaign coordinat[ed] a term that appears in the appointment order with Russian election interference activities. Like collusion, coordination does not have a settled definition in federal criminal law. We understood coordination to require an agreement tacit or express between the Trump Campaign and the Russian government on election interference. That requires more than the two parties taking actions that were informed by or responsive to the others actions or interests.1 We applied the term coordination in that sense when stating in the report that the investigation did not establish that the Trump Campaign coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.

 
However the finding is more nuanced that just “no coordination” or conspiracy.
 
 

Although members of the IRA had contact with individuals affiliated with the Trump Campaign, the indictment does not charge any Trump Campaign official or any other U.S. person with participating in the conspiracy. [b][i]That is because the investigation did not identify evidence that any U.S. person who coordinated or communicated with the IRA knew that he or she was speaking with Russian nationals engaged in the criminal conspiracy. The Office therefore determined that such persons did not have the knowledge or criminal purpose required to charge them in the conspiracy to defraud the United States (Count One) or in the separate count alleging a wire-and bank-fraud conspiracy involving the IRA and two individual Russian nationals (Count Two).[/i][/b]
 
The Office did, however, charge one U.S. national for his role in supplying false or stolen bank account numbers that allowed the IRA conspirators to access U.S. online payment systems by circumventing those systems security features. 

 
 

[Unknown Member]

Again not a legal scholar here but

Trump continually saying no collusion no collusion no collusion

Is an argument he cant lose because collusion is not really defined legally so never can it be a crime

Basically its a bait and switch narrative that he cannot lose

[kayla.meyer_144]

More importantly, an explanation behind the report’s about conspiracy between Trump and the Russians:
 
 

But collusion is not a specific offense or theory of liability found in the U.S. Code; nor is it a term of art in federal criminal law. To the contrary, even as defined in legal dictionaries, collusion is largely synonymous with conspiracy as that crime is set forth in the general federal conspiracy statute, 18 U.S.C. §371. See [i]Blacks Law Dictionary[/i] 321 (10th ed. 2014) (collusion is [a]n agreement to defraud another or to do or obtain something forbidden by law”); 1 Alexander Burrill, [i]A Law Dictionary and Glossary[/i] 311 (1871) (An agreement between two or more persons to defraud another by the forms of law, or to employ such forms as means of accomplishing some unlawful object.”); 1 [i]Bouviers Law Dictionary[/i] 352 [size=”0″](1897) (An agreement between two or more persons to defraud a person of his rights by the forms of law, or to obtain an object forbidden by law.”).[/size]
[size=”0″]
[/size]
For that reason, this Offices focus in resolving the question of joint criminal liability was on conspiracy as defined in federal law, not the commonly discussed term collusion. The Office considered in particular whether contacts between Trump Campaign officials and Russia-linked individuals could trigger liability for the crime of conspiracy-either under statutes that have their own conspiracy language [i](e.g.[/i], 18 U.S.C. §§ 1349, 1951(a)), or under the general conspiracy statute (18 U.S.C. § 371). The investigation did not establish that the contacts described in [link=https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/04/18/us/politics/mueller-report-document.html#g-page-74]Volume I, Section IV[/link], [i]supra[/i], amounted to an agreement to commit any substantive violation of federal criminal law includi[size=”0″]ng foreign-influence and campaign-finance laws, both of which are discussed further below. The Office therefore did not charge any individual associated with the Trump Campaign with conspiracy to commit a federal offense arising from Russia contacts, either under a specific statute or under Section 371s offenses clause.[/size]
[size=”0″]
[/size]
[b][i]The Office also did not charge any campaign official or associate with a conspiracy under Section 371s defraud clause. That clause criminalizes participating in an agreement to obstruct a lawful function of the U.S. government or its agencies through deceitful or dishonest means.[/i][/b]

 
Trump’s “collusion” was out in the open inviting the Russians to do everything but there was no secret coordination provided. Or needed.

[kayla.meyer_144]

Nancy has it right, don’t impeach, “LOCK HIM UP!”
 
Trump’s feelings are hurt calling Nancy “nasty, vindictive and horrible person.” 
 
Uh, he is describing himself, not Nancy. Apparently Trump objects to his own campaign misogyny turned against himself. Poor, poor sensitive dear. 
 
[link=https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-calls-pelosi-a-nasty-vindictive-horrible-person-after-she-said-shed-like-to-see-him-in-prison/2019/06/07/ad19058c-890b-11e9-98c1-e945ae5db8fb_story.html]https://www.washingtonpos…945ae5db8fb_story.html[/link]
 

I think shes a disgrace, Trump said on Fox News. I actually dont think shes a talented person. Ive tried to be nice to her because I would have liked to have gotten some deals done. Shes incapable of doing deals. Shes a nasty, vindictive, horrible person.
 
Trumps tirade about Pelosi (D-Calif.) came in response to a question about comments she made during a meeting Tuesday night with five of her committee chairmen. Trying to tamp down impeachment talk about Trump, Pelosi said she would rather see him in prison after leaving office, according to two Democratic officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity to share private conversations.
 
The [i](Trump’s)[/i] interview was recorded before Thursday mornings ceremony in France that paid tribute to troops who stormed Normandys beaches 75 years ago in an invasion of Nazi-occupied France that helped turn the tide of World War II. The interview aired in full on Thursday night.
 
Pelosi, who attended the ceremony, declined to respond to an excerpt in which Trump branded her a disaster. During a brief interview, she said she would rather not criticize Trump while she is out of the country, according to a tweet by a CNN correspondent.

 
What a surprise, even at D-Day commemoration Trump can’t stay on topic about the people who died that day and shut up about himself and victimization.
 
But then that’s why his supporters elected this small-minded angry and nasty man. As they argue, you can’t impeach him for doing what they elected him for and to do.
 
“LOCK HIM UP!” 
“LOCK HIM UP!” 
“LOCK HIM UP!” 
  

[Unknown Member]

Nancy has the most integrity and is of the highest character as anyone currently in Washington right now

She is actually one of the few politicians who can take the moral high ground stance today

Best speaker since tip ONeill

[btomba_77]

PBS doing an excellent multi-part series on a deep dive into the report
 
 
[i]Inside the Report[/i]:
 
Why ‘numerous links’ between Trump campaign and Russia didn’t add up to conspiracy[/h1]  
 
[link]https://youtu.be/rZCXFmlEjmg[/link]
 
 
“Tonight we examine the president’s actions and whether Mueller documents evidence of obstruction of justice.” 
 
[link=https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/how-mueller-himself-factors-into-the-trump-obstruction-investigation]https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/how-mueller-himself-factors-into-the-trump-obstruction-investigation[/link]
 
“What the Mueller report says about the firing of James Comey”
[link=https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/what-the-mueller-report-says-about-trumps-firing-james-comey]https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/what-the-mueller-report-says-about-trumps-firing-james-comey[/link]

[katiemckee84_223]

The thinking here is ass backwards. It’s like saying in a med mal case that “There isn’t any evidence that Dr. Frumious committed malpractice”. And then someone saying, “but that doesn’t mean he didn’t commit malpractice.” He should have done XYZ that I wanted him to do, or not do.
 
It’s mind numbing-ly stupid.
 
Even with all of that, the entire Mueller report is a fraud. He defrauded the American people over and over with his henchman led by Weissman, and this is known over several facts, the first being that there is no good evidence that “Russians” hacked the DNC email acquisition, again, it is [b]known [/b]that it was done with flash drive = inside job. So that’s the first and most important lie of all which makes you take hack Mueller and Weissman not seriously at all, even worse, that they are criminals and liars. Beyond that, they set up people, in fact everyone accused, with “Russians” that were actually US spies.
 
It’s unfathomable your hate for honesty and truth since these are FACTS.

[alyaa.rifaie_129]

Weissman was Muellers right hand in this whole process. Just read about what he has done. People in jail that were falsely accused. He has had big cases overturned by the courts. He has a bad reputation. There is a book [i]Licensed to Lie[/i] by former DOJ attorney Sidney Powell on the corruption.
 
Interesting story by John Solomon for The Hill about the Mueller report and the left out info on Konstantin Kilimnik.
 
 

[katiemckee84_223]

It is undeniable that these men have a track record of getting things wrong, and what’s worse, they are totally unrepentant about it. I have already given the examples, but most well known is easily the anthrax case where the defendant’s life was almost ruined by Mueller, who never admitted any wrongdoing, but the court thought of over $5 million other reasons why he was.
 
Of course, no one will challenge the multitude of outright shadiness (at best) or criminal activity of Weissman and Mueller. That’s how low Off Topic has sunk, and it’s been a while that it has been that way, too.

[kayla.meyer_144]

Quote from Ixrayu

Weissman was Muellers right hand in this whole process. Just read about what he has done. People in jail that were falsely accused. He has had big cases overturned by the courts. He has a bad reputation. There is a book [i]Licensed to Lie[/i] by former DOJ attorney Sidney Powell on the corruption.

Interesting story by John Solomon for The Hill about the Mueller report and the left out info on Konstantin Kilimnik.

Shocking! The criminal justice system is not perfect & there are prosecutors who convict innocent people.
 
As if. Have you heard of the Central Park 5 & the Netflix story based on their convictions?
 
Have you read Barry Scheck’s [i]”Actual Innocence[/i]?” How many people on death row who, “OOPS!” are actually innocent? How about the prosecutions and convictions of the hysteria in the 1980’s of the day care sex abuse scandals by staff in very many states? 
 
There is a long history of prosecutorial abuse in every state and Federal government. There is no Golden Age or perfection. Think of McCarthy and the House on UnAmerican Activities.
 
But deflection is not what the Mueller report is about.  Stick to the facts about the report. There is also the injustice of some people who are untouchable due solely to their position and power and support by corrupt politicians.  
 
 

[kaldridgewv2211]

great caesars ghost.  Anyone else see the Barr memo that CREW got.  Talk about a cover up for Trump’s obstruction of justice.

[btomba_77]

I lay this on Mueller.
 
He punted.
 
He should have made a prosecutorial decision but he didn’t.
 
Instead he left it up to Trumpist political appointees who did *exactly* what we all would expect them to do…. lie, obfuscate, misrepresent, an cover-up.

[ruszja]

Quote from kpack123

Oh wait now it was a funny aside

Yes just like the wall that Mexico was going to pay for

It was just a joke

 
Neither really related to the question of whether there was an organized effort between trumps campaign and the russian intelligence services to influence the outcome of the election.

[katiemckee84_223]

fw [b]with a total smackdown[/b]
 
kpack has nothing to say, didn’t read the report, doesn’t care what is in it
 
He is a traitor to truth.