(03-25-2019 06:57 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-24-2019 10:05 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-24-2019 10:02 PM)Boston Owl Wrote:  

(03-24-2019 09:58 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I'm no Trump lover, so maybe it doesn't count, but I am a lover of the law. Either way, your wait is over.

Nice try. Insufficient! I'll keep waiting.

So what you are looking for is someone to say, "You're right, Trump is a Putin stooge who conspired with the Russians to steal the 2016 election," and anything less or different is insufficient? Ok, keep waiting.
By the way, do you have any capability to respond to any of the points that I made?

I personally am looking to read the report itself and not the 2-day distillation if a Trump appointee who would have an incentive to minimize any sort of damaging information that could be included in the report.

He would also have the knowledge tat the report is going to be released to the public in the near future, and that any material misrepresentation by him would have serious negative repercussions for his pretty much a sterling reputation for long and distinguished public service. Things like that mean a lot to folks like him.

Quote:Barr is certainly not falsifying his summary - the Mueller report definitely says that the Trump campaign did not conspire or collude with the Russian government as he quoted in his summary. But I want to see the analysis of all of the work the Mueller team put in and what exactly they found during their research. Same goes for the obstruction charges that the Mueller team was intentionally non-commital about. If anything, I’m most curious about why the Mueller team explicitly states their findings do not exonerate him.

I would be really interested in knowing exactly what the Mueller team could have found that would exonerate him. What they probably found is nothing to indicate any criminal activity. That would be as far as they could go. Remember, in our criminal justice system, you don't prove people innocent or guilty, you either prove them guilty or you don't. Mueller and his team would not be looking for evidence to exonerate him, so it is quite likely that they didn't find any.

So you want to see all their work? Why, so you can second-guess them? So you can prove that you know the law better than a bunch of trained, experienced experts, most of whom happen to belong to the adversary party? Just as an aside, how much law enforcement work have you done? How much criminal prosecution or defense have you done? I haven't done much, but I've done enough to know that it ain't Perry Mason.

Quote:My guess is we’ll see most, if not all of, the report come out in the next few weeks and there will be a summary of a lot of the facts that have already been made public about the Trump campaign’s interaction with Russian-affiliated individuals (like the Russian lawyer from the TT meeting). And that there will be details about these that the public will not have been made aware of, but that those details won’t have provided sufficient evidence that the Trump campaign colluded with the Russian government.

Given the timing and scope and extent of this investigation, I'm guessing they covered the waterfront pretty extensively. Remember that the report apparently pretty much exonerates him on the "collusion" claim, it's the obstruction claim that they didn't. I guess you are hoping for some glaring loose end somewhere that the house can just pound to death investigating. Bobby Three Sticks doesn't operate that way.

Quote:The Mueller investigation has helped cement the fact that the Russian government brazenly attempted to interfere with our elections, and did so in one route by reaching out repeatedly to one major campaign that never alerted the authorities and hacking the DNC (unless you believe Pwl#s who simultaneously doubts the AG and calls out people for doubting him).

I presume that's a typo and you are referring to me. If so, that's a pretty blatant misrepresentation of my comments. First, I have been very vocal from the start of this fiasco that the Russians have been hacking us for years, or at least trying to do so. It would not surprise me if they hacked the DNC, and I've read that they at least tried to hack the RNC as well. Given the Clintons' somewhat cavalier history with regard to national security, I would expect their campaign to have lax information security protections.

I don't doubt the AG, or call out people for doubting him, because the AG hasn't opined on anything. He's just summarized, and in some cased quoted, the Mueller report. I've pretty much consistently said let's not go spiking footballs until the entire report comes out.

What else I've said consistently is that this whole narrative where "the Russians" hacked the DNC and passed the information to WikiLeaks who then coordinated with the Trump team to sabotage Hillary just doesn't pass the smell test. One, the data transfer statistics don't match hacking speeds. Two, the DNC specifically never gave FBI or any other government agency access to the servers, but instead provided them with a transcript prepared by what was effectively an in-house consulting firm. I'm not sure you could get that transcript sufficiently authenticated to use it as evidence, and it would be at best tainted evidence. Three, WikiLeaks spokespersons have said that they didn't get the data dump from the Russians. I think it's entire possible that the Russians and everybody else and their brother hacked the DNC--heck there's probably some dark site out there with all the passwords on it--but that the Russian hack was not where WikiLeaks got the data.

Mueller's report apparently said that the Russians hacked the DNC. I'm sure they did. I don't know how clearly they can nail down that the Russian hack was the exact source of the information that made it to WikiLeaks. If they were able to nail that down, then I would doubt very seriously that they overlooked anything else.

Quote:It has helped shine a light on the tentacles the Russian government has tried to extend into American political life (e.g. the infiltration into the NRA). And it’s also resulted in people being more aware of the prevelance of corruption/kleptocracy throughout the world and the role the US plays by playing loosey goosey with shell corportationa (right now their is speculation in the courts that Manafort is attempting to use a shell corporation to pass >$1MM from himself back to himself!).

The Russian government spreading tentacles into American political life? Infiltration into the NRA? I think that may be overstating things a bit.

And as for Manafort, there is no love lost for him here, but "speculation in the courts" that he may be "attempting" to do something is not exactly proof of any widespread practices.