(03-24-2019 11:41 AM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  

(03-24-2019 10:33 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Five results of Mueller-rama:

1) Mueller did not indict Donald Trump Jr., Jared Kushner, or other people whose purported legal jeopardy was the subject of intense media speculation in the last year.

Thus, Mueller found no criminality arising from that famous meeting Trump Jr. and Kushner had with the Russian lawyer.

2) Mueller did not charge anyone in the Trump campaign or circle with conspiring with Russia to fix the 2016 election, as was the subject of intense media speculation in the last year.

Thus, Mueller found no collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia that gives rise to a criminal offense meriting prosecution.

If the Democrats nonetheless continue their quest to find collusion, they will seem to most observers to be grasping straws.

3) Mueller did not subpoena the president, as was the subject of intense media speculation in the last year.

4) Trump did not fire Mueller, as was the subject of intense media speculation in the last year.

5) Trump did not interfere with the Mueller investigation, as was the subject of intense media speculation in the last year. In his letter to Congress, Barr noted the requirement that he notify lawmakers if top Justice Department officials ever interfered with the Mueller investigation. “There were no such instances,” Barr wrote.

What do 1-5 tell you about 'intense media speculation'?

The mainstream media, it seems, was consistently off-base in its coverage of the Mueller investigation. A combination of hysteria and wishful thinking ensured that it would be.

(list and contents paraphrased and/or taken from another source).

Yay. We should be proud.

Kind of makes the rabid salivating by James Brennan stand out as a pretty partisan action. From his position of service at the top of the Obama administration, Brennan was of course a key participant in the peddling of alleged Trump campaign collusion with Russia. Yay. We should be proud.

I could be wrong but I kind of feel that if #1 thru #5 were all correct, then Trump would have inundated us with victory tweets by now. I think it's very possible that 3 thru 5 are possible but #1 and 2 may not be true. All along, I've been pretty constant in my opinion that I think about as much of this report, as any thoughts of trying to prosecute Hillary Clinton for her dealings as Secretary of State. And I don't think we should necessarily go after Trump's children, or Trump himself (Mueller sounds like he wants the New York Attorney General's office to do the dirty work now). I feel like all of this is anti-productive for the country.

But I also feel that if the Mueller Report had nothing, Trump would not be silent about it.

Care to share with us any indictments of any Mueller indictments of Donald Trump Jr., Jared Kushner? I am not aware of any.

Care to share with us any actions of the Mueller team charging anyone in the Trump campaign or circle with conspiring with Russia to fix the 2016 election? Again, I am not aware of any.

Considering the reports have explicitly stated that the Mueller team will not indict any further people, nor are there any sealed or unsealed indictments pending, kind of hard to take the stance you have taken re: 1 and 2.

As for #3-#5 being 'possible' (your words), can you show any evidence of, in order, a Mueller subpoena of the President, Trump firing Mueller, or Trump interfering with the Mueller investigation? FtBend, with all respect, for #3 and #4 to only be 'possible' takes a *gigantic* leap of imagination since they are fundamentally and categorically true.

I just want to know what the report says before speculating about what is/isn’t in it. The reporting saying that no further indictments will be made by Mueller’s team is about the only thing I feel comfortable discussing with respect to what is in the document.

(03-24-2019 11:41 AM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  

(03-24-2019 10:33 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Five results of Mueller-rama:

1) Mueller did not indict Donald Trump Jr., Jared Kushner, or other people whose purported legal jeopardy was the subject of intense media speculation in the last year.

Thus, Mueller found no criminality arising from that famous meeting Trump Jr. and Kushner had with the Russian lawyer.

2) Mueller did not charge anyone in the Trump campaign or circle with conspiring with Russia to fix the 2016 election, as was the subject of intense media speculation in the last year.

Thus, Mueller found no collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia that gives rise to a criminal offense meriting prosecution.

If the Democrats nonetheless continue their quest to find collusion, they will seem to most observers to be grasping straws.

3) Mueller did not subpoena the president, as was the subject of intense media speculation in the last year.

4) Trump did not fire Mueller, as was the subject of intense media speculation in the last year.

5) Trump did not interfere with the Mueller investigation, as was the subject of intense media speculation in the last year. In his letter to Congress, Barr noted the requirement that he notify lawmakers if top Justice Department officials ever interfered with the Mueller investigation. “There were no such instances,” Barr wrote.

What do 1-5 tell you about 'intense media speculation'?

The mainstream media, it seems, was consistently off-base in its coverage of the Mueller investigation. A combination of hysteria and wishful thinking ensured that it would be.

(list and contents paraphrased and/or taken from another source).

Yay. We should be proud.

Kind of makes the rabid salivating by James Brennan stand out as a pretty partisan action. From his position of service at the top of the Obama administration, Brennan was of course a key participant in the peddling of alleged Trump campaign collusion with Russia. Yay. We should be proud.

I could be wrong but I kind of feel that if #1 thru #5 were all correct, then Trump would have inundated us with victory tweets by now. I think it's very possible that 3 thru 5 are possible but #1 and 2 may not be true. All along, I've been pretty constant in my opinion that I think about as much of this report, as any thoughts of trying to prosecute Hillary Clinton for her dealings as Secretary of State. And I don't think we should necessarily go after Trump's children, or Trump himself (Mueller sounds like he wants the New York Attorney General's office to do the dirty work now). I feel like all of this is anti-productive for the country.

But I also feel that if the Mueller Report had nothing, Trump would not be silent about it.

i think both sid s, with the exception of certain politicians, are exercising caution.

Certainly, I think if Mueller had uncovered a conspicy with a foreign power, he would have indicted.

But, that doesn’t he found nothing unsavory, and I fully expect your side to worry hose things like a dog with a bone. The War onTrump will continue, with innuendo and supposition still it’s main weapons.

I never saw anything wrong in the att meeting, in any of the supposed conspiracy actions. All would, and have been, considered OK if done but Democrats. I am resigned to continuing hysteria from the Democrats for the next 2-6 years, and I think it is bad for the country and the Democrats. The latter I am OKwith. The former, not so much.

Maybe some minor transgressions, like paying off the bimbos, will pan out. I guess the left wii demand Leavenworth in stead of th normal fines. The over reach will continue, and continue to fail

But I said two years ago, and continue to, collusion was irrational and unneeded. If the Dems continue to search for it, it will be like hunting for elephants in Peru. Your choice.

(03-24-2019 12:01 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I just want to know what the report says before speculating about what is/isn’t in it. The reporting saying that no further indictments will be made by Mueller’s team is about the only thing I feel comfortable discussing with respect to what is in the document.

None of my comments rose to 'what is in the report' -- they reflect the actions of the Mueller investigation. I find it rather amazing that people seemingly cannot or are unable to comment on actions that can be easily ascertained to have or have not occurred.

Each of the five points noted above either occurred, or did not. We have one person on the board saying that 1-5 'are possible'. And another who responds to the 5 points not to what the points are --- but abstaining to comment on the existence of a straight fact of occurrence by noting that they wish to 'see the report'. Is it really that tough to note the existence of the 5 points stated above?

(03-24-2019 12:36 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(03-24-2019 12:01 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I just want to know what the report says before speculating about what is/isn’t in it. The reporting saying that no further indictments will be made by Mueller’s team is about the only thing I feel comfortable discussing with respect to what is in the document.

None of my comments rose to 'what is in the report' -- they reflect the actions of the Mueller investigation. I find it rather amazing that people seemingly cannot or are unable to comment on actions that can be easily ascertained to have or have not occurred.

Each of the five points noted above either occurred, or did not. We have one person on the board saying that 1-5 'are possible'. And another who responds to the 5 points not to what the points are --- but abstaining to comment on the existence of a straight fact of occurrence by noting that they wish to 'see the report'. Is it really that tough to note the existence of the 5 points stated above?

I wasn’t directly responding to your individual points, hence why I didn’t directly quote your post.

For all we know, the only reason there are reports of no further indictments by Mueller is that he is following DOJ protocol about not indicting a sitting president.

(03-24-2019 12:46 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-24-2019 12:36 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(03-24-2019 12:01 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I just want to know what the report says before speculating about what is/isn’t in it. The reporting saying that no further indictments will be made by Mueller’s team is about the only thing I feel comfortable discussing with respect to what is in the document.

None of my comments rose to 'what is in the report' -- they reflect the actions of the Mueller investigation. I find it rather amazing that people seemingly cannot or are unable to comment on actions that can be easily ascertained to have or have not occurred.

Each of the five points noted above either occurred, or did not. We have one person on the board saying that 1-5 'are possible'. And another who responds to the 5 points not to what the points are --- but abstaining to comment on the existence of a straight fact of occurrence by noting that they wish to 'see the report'. Is it really that tough to note the existence of the 5 points stated above?

For all we know, the only reason there are reports of no further indictments by Mueller is that he is following DOJ protocol about not indicting a sitting president.

Lmao. Yes. Thats the case. /sarcasm off

So you say 'it is possible to realistically implicate Trump without anyone else being indicted'. Got it. Hate to tell you but 'further indictments' includes the 'inner circle'; which does *not* include the sitting President. No legal issue about indicting them, fyi.

Mueller had no fing qualms indicting people for a crap-ton of non-related process crimes, and you *really* expect him not to indict on something pertinent? Put your thinking cap on there lad, instead of your deflated wishes cap that your comment evidences.

I read the same crap thesis in HuffPo -- case of 'wishful thinking trumping anything approaching rational thought process'. I expect that line from MSNBC and from HuffPo. Not necessarily from other quarters. I wonder how many other times I will see that rather unrealistic comment used in the next week or so.

The singular fact is that if the 'sitting President' indictment is flawed since if there was a sufficiency 'but for' that issue, then there would be a raft of indictments out for others as well that did not enjoy that protection. Look up Haldeman and Erlichman. If there was criminal 'collusive' activity, more than just Trump would be implicated and those others would *definitely* be indicted.

(03-24-2019 01:17 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(03-24-2019 12:46 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-24-2019 12:36 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(03-24-2019 12:01 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I just want to know what the report says before speculating about what is/isn’t in it. The reporting saying that no further indictments will be made by Mueller’s team is about the only thing I feel comfortable discussing with respect to what is in the document.

None of my comments rose to 'what is in the report' -- they reflect the actions of the Mueller investigation. I find it rather amazing that people seemingly cannot or are unable to comment on actions that can be easily ascertained to have or have not occurred.

Each of the five points noted above either occurred, or did not. We have one person on the board saying that 1-5 'are possible'. And another who responds to the 5 points not to what the points are --- but abstaining to comment on the existence of a straight fact of occurrence by noting that they wish to 'see the report'. Is it really that tough to note the existence of the 5 points stated above?

For all we know, the only reason there are reports of no further indictments by Mueller is that he is following DOJ protocol about not indicting a sitting president.

Lmao. Yes. Thats the case. /sarcasm off

So you say 'it is possible to realistically implicate Trump without anyone else being indicted'. Got it. Hate to tell you but 'further indictments' includes the 'inner circle'; which does *not* include the sitting President. No legal issue about indicting them, fyi.

Mueller had no fing qualms indicting people for a crap-ton of non-related process crimes, and you *really* expect him not to indict on something pertinent? Put your thinking cap on there lad, instead of your deflated wishes cap that your comment evidences.

I read the same crap thesis in HuffPo -- case of 'wishful thinking trumping anything approaching rational thought process'. I expect that line from MSNBC and from HuffPo. Not necessarily from other quarters. I wonder how many other times I will see that rather unrealistic comment used in the next week or so.

The singular fact is that if the 'sitting President' indictment is flawed since if there was a sufficiency 'but for' that issue, then there would be a raft of indictments out for others as well that did not enjoy that protection. Look up Haldeman and Erlichman. If there was criminal 'collusive' activity, more than just Trump would be implicated and those others would *definitely* be indicted.

It has nothing to do with deflated wishes - go back to posts I've made regarding this investigation for the past two years and find all of the times I said I thought Trump would be indicted for "collusion."

My point is that I am going to wait until the report is released to try and draw any conclusions about what is included in it, beyond the current reporting that says it will not include any further indictments by Mueller. Again, I wasn't responding to your 5 points that you spend so much time typing out, sorry that I confused you.

(03-24-2019 01:51 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  It has nothing to do with deflated wishes - go back to posts I've made regarding this investigation for the past two years and find all of the times I said I thought Trump would be indicted for "collusion."
My point is that I am going to wait until the report is released to try and draw any conclusions about what is included in it, beyond the current reporting that says it will not include any further indictments by Mueller. Again, I wasn't responding to your 5 points that you spend so much time typing out, sorry that I confused you.

I think we should all wait for the report. But the, "no further indictments," if true, pretty much kills the collusion narrative. I get the, "can't indict a sitting president," argument except if there was a conspiracy, Trump didn't do it alone, and you could indict anyone else involved.

As I've said repeatedly, the only thing I have ever wanted was to see the same rule applied with equal vigor to all. I don't see a snowball's chance in hell of that happening. So I see nothing to celebrate.

(03-24-2019 01:51 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-24-2019 01:17 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(03-24-2019 12:46 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-24-2019 12:36 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(03-24-2019 12:01 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I just want to know what the report says before speculating about what is/isn’t in it. The reporting saying that no further indictments will be made by Mueller’s team is about the only thing I feel comfortable discussing with respect to what is in the document.

None of my comments rose to 'what is in the report' -- they reflect the actions of the Mueller investigation. I find it rather amazing that people seemingly cannot or are unable to comment on actions that can be easily ascertained to have or have not occurred.

Each of the five points noted above either occurred, or did not. We have one person on the board saying that 1-5 'are possible'. And another who responds to the 5 points not to what the points are --- but abstaining to comment on the existence of a straight fact of occurrence by noting that they wish to 'see the report'. Is it really that tough to note the existence of the 5 points stated above?

For all we know, the only reason there are reports of no further indictments by Mueller is that he is following DOJ protocol about not indicting a sitting president.

Lmao. Yes. Thats the case. /sarcasm off

So you say 'it is possible to realistically implicate Trump without anyone else being indicted'. Got it. Hate to tell you but 'further indictments' includes the 'inner circle'; which does *not* include the sitting President. No legal issue about indicting them, fyi.

Mueller had no fing qualms indicting people for a crap-ton of non-related process crimes, and you *really* expect him not to indict on something pertinent? Put your thinking cap on there lad, instead of your deflated wishes cap that your comment evidences.

I read the same crap thesis in HuffPo -- case of 'wishful thinking trumping anything approaching rational thought process'. I expect that line from MSNBC and from HuffPo. Not necessarily from other quarters. I wonder how many other times I will see that rather unrealistic comment used in the next week or so.

The singular fact is that if the 'sitting President' indictment is flawed since if there was a sufficiency 'but for' that issue, then there would be a raft of indictments out for others as well that did not enjoy that protection. Look up Haldeman and Erlichman. If there was criminal 'collusive' activity, more than just Trump would be implicated and those others would *definitely* be indicted.

It has nothing to do with deflated wishes - go back to posts I've made regarding this investigation for the past two years and find all of the times I said I thought Trump would be indicted for "collusion."

My point is that I am going to wait until the report is released to try and draw any conclusions about what is included in it, beyond the current reporting that says it will not include any further indictments by Mueller. Again, I wasn't responding to your 5 points that you spend so much time typing out, sorry that I confused you.

My comment above yours was not in response to 'whats in the report' -- it was in response to your thesis that

Quote:"[f]or all we know, the only reason there are reports of no further indictments by Mueller is that he is following DOJ protocol about not indicting a sitting president."

That thesis is pretty stupid for a number of real-world reasons.

I guess that didnt sink in.

(03-24-2019 02:03 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(03-24-2019 01:51 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-24-2019 01:17 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(03-24-2019 12:46 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-24-2019 12:36 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  None of my comments rose to 'what is in the report' -- they reflect the actions of the Mueller investigation. I find it rather amazing that people seemingly cannot or are unable to comment on actions that can be easily ascertained to have or have not occurred.

Each of the five points noted above either occurred, or did not. We have one person on the board saying that 1-5 'are possible'. And another who responds to the 5 points not to what the points are --- but abstaining to comment on the existence of a straight fact of occurrence by noting that they wish to 'see the report'. Is it really that tough to note the existence of the 5 points stated above?

For all we know, the only reason there are reports of no further indictments by Mueller is that he is following DOJ protocol about not indicting a sitting president.

Lmao. Yes. Thats the case. /sarcasm off

So you say 'it is possible to realistically implicate Trump without anyone else being indicted'. Got it. Hate to tell you but 'further indictments' includes the 'inner circle'; which does *not* include the sitting President. No legal issue about indicting them, fyi.

Mueller had no fing qualms indicting people for a crap-ton of non-related process crimes, and you *really* expect him not to indict on something pertinent? Put your thinking cap on there lad, instead of your deflated wishes cap that your comment evidences.

I read the same crap thesis in HuffPo -- case of 'wishful thinking trumping anything approaching rational thought process'. I expect that line from MSNBC and from HuffPo. Not necessarily from other quarters. I wonder how many other times I will see that rather unrealistic comment used in the next week or so.

The singular fact is that if the 'sitting President' indictment is flawed since if there was a sufficiency 'but for' that issue, then there would be a raft of indictments out for others as well that did not enjoy that protection. Look up Haldeman and Erlichman. If there was criminal 'collusive' activity, more than just Trump would be implicated and those others would *definitely* be indicted.

It has nothing to do with deflated wishes - go back to posts I've made regarding this investigation for the past two years and find all of the times I said I thought Trump would be indicted for "collusion."

My point is that I am going to wait until the report is released to try and draw any conclusions about what is included in it, beyond the current reporting that says it will not include any further indictments by Mueller. Again, I wasn't responding to your 5 points that you spend so much time typing out, sorry that I confused you.

My comment above yours was not in response to 'whats in the report' -- it was in response to your thesis that

Quote:"[f]or all we know, the only reason there are reports of no further indictments by Mueller is that he is following DOJ protocol about not indicting a sitting president."

That thesis is pretty stupid for a number of real-world reasons.

I guess that didnt sink in.

Much more of a hypothesis about why we may not see further indictments than a thesis on why we did not see further indictments. A thesis would mean I was arguing for something, which I explicitly stated I was not going to do until the report was released.

Assuming the early reporting is true (and there’s no real reason to doubt it), we can’t say for certain why there are no further recommendations for indictments. It could be because the Trump campaign was squeaky clean outside of the indictments already made. Like I said, let’s wait and see.

(03-24-2019 02:39 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-24-2019 02:03 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(03-24-2019 01:51 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-24-2019 01:17 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(03-24-2019 12:46 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  For all we know, the only reason there are reports of no further indictments by Mueller is that he is following DOJ protocol about not indicting a sitting president.

Lmao. Yes. Thats the case. /sarcasm off

So you say 'it is possible to realistically implicate Trump without anyone else being indicted'. Got it. Hate to tell you but 'further indictments' includes the 'inner circle'; which does *not* include the sitting President. No legal issue about indicting them, fyi.

Mueller had no fing qualms indicting people for a crap-ton of non-related process crimes, and you *really* expect him not to indict on something pertinent? Put your thinking cap on there lad, instead of your deflated wishes cap that your comment evidences.

I read the same crap thesis in HuffPo -- case of 'wishful thinking trumping anything approaching rational thought process'. I expect that line from MSNBC and from HuffPo. Not necessarily from other quarters. I wonder how many other times I will see that rather unrealistic comment used in the next week or so.

The singular fact is that if the 'sitting President' indictment is flawed since if there was a sufficiency 'but for' that issue, then there would be a raft of indictments out for others as well that did not enjoy that protection. Look up Haldeman and Erlichman. If there was criminal 'collusive' activity, more than just Trump would be implicated and those others would *definitely* be indicted.

It has nothing to do with deflated wishes - go back to posts I've made regarding this investigation for the past two years and find all of the times I said I thought Trump would be indicted for "collusion."

My point is that I am going to wait until the report is released to try and draw any conclusions about what is included in it, beyond the current reporting that says it will not include any further indictments by Mueller. Again, I wasn't responding to your 5 points that you spend so much time typing out, sorry that I confused you.

My comment above yours was not in response to 'whats in the report' -- it was in response to your thesis that

Quote:"[f]or all we know, the only reason there are reports of no further indictments by Mueller is that he is following DOJ protocol about not indicting a sitting president."

That thesis is pretty stupid for a number of real-world reasons.

I guess that didnt sink in.

Much more of a hypothesis about why we may not see further indictments than a thesis on why we did not see further indictments. A thesis would mean I was arguing for something, which I explicitly stated I was not going to do until the report was released.

Assuming the early reporting is true (and there’s no real reason to doubt it), we can’t say for certain why there are no further recommendations for indictments. It could be because the Trump campaign was squeaky clean outside of the indictments already made. Like I said, let’s wait and see.

Well, whether a thesis or a hypothesis, the comment that:

Quote:"[f]or all we know, the only reason there are reports of no further indictments by Mueller is that he is following DOJ protocol about not indicting a sitting president."

doesnt pass the real-world reality test. *That* is my point there.

Barr's Letter to Senate Relating to the Principal Findings of the Mueller Investigation

Takeaways:

Mueller's investigation does not find that the Trump campaign knowingly conspired with Russia.
Mueller's investigation finds that there was no coordination between Russia and any member of the Trump campaign.
Evidence does not establish that the president was involved in an underlying crime related to Russian election interference
Evidence developed during investigation not sufficient to establish the president committed an obstruction of justice offense
Report identifies no actions that constitute obstructive conduct

Again --

Quote:Two plus years, thirty million dollars, our fbi and doj compromised, thousands of fake news stories, millions of people all entranced in a false story of Russia collusion based on oppo research that was always unsubstantiated and preposterous

Hope it was worth it.

But I am sure that it is only and simply because there is a Constitutional issue with indicting a sitting President.... I wonder what will keep the 'Resistance' in full beclowning mode at this juncture.

Quote:For Democrats, the Mueller Report has turned out to be the Fyre Festival of investigations.

The witch hunt is over. Well, not really, the hunters will continue to hunt in other arenas.

It's as if the elephant hunt in Peru resulted in six rabbits being shot, and then the hunters pronounced it a success and that it will be continued in Norway.

Hope this clears the "smoke" for you, lad.

I have been listening to MSNBC and CNN since
friday afternoon. The War on Trump will continue. They, from commentators to Congressmen, are finding reasons to continue. The left makes fun of people of faith (Christians, anyway), but then they explain that they "know" in their hearts that Trump conspired with Russia, and if Mueller missed it, he just wasn't looking. Clearly a staff of dozens, $25,000,000, and two years was not enough. I expect somebody soon in imply that Trump got to Mueller, and then somebody else to give that as a "fact" showing Trump obstructed justice.

Quote: the hunters will continue to hunt in other arenas.

Hands up, don’t shoot.
Kavanaugh ran a secret gang rape cartel.
Covington kids assaulted a vet.
Trump colluded with the Russians.
Trump obstructed justice.

Never forget that these lies — and yes, they were all outright lies — were deliberately peddled by all the same people for all the same reasons.

They are hanging their hats now on the fact that Mueller did not exonerate him for obstruction. Clearly that means to them he is guilty of it, although nobody can say what he obstructed, when, and how.

the report identifies no actions that, in our judgment, constitute obstructive conduct, had a nexus to a pending or contemplated proceeding, and were done with corrupt intent, each of which, under the Department’s principles of federal prosecution guiding charging decisions, would need to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt to establish an obstruction-of-justice offense.

I cannot prove that President Leebron held up a liquor store, but I cannot exonerate him either. I simply don't know.

Where are the Democrats?

(03-24-2019 06:49 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Where are the Democrats?

Democrat here.

I am glad that Mueller did not find that the President or his campaign conspired with the Russians to interfere in the 2016 election. The alternative is too frightening to contemplate.

But let's not lose sight of the big picture.

Mueller found, as all of us know, that the Russians interfered in the 2016 election. Trump denied it for years. Why?

Trump asked Russia, on TV, to hack Clinton's emails during the campaign. Russia tried to do so that same day. What's up with that?

Trump's campaign manager gave a Russian intelligence agent 75 pages of polling data during the campaign. Why?

Trump pursued a business deal in Russia during the campaign and lied about it. Why?

Trump and his cronies lied about the Trump Tower meeting with the Russians. Why?

Trump loves Russia. He licked Putin's boots in Helsinki. He tried to eliminate the sanctions against Russia. Etc. Why?

Trump obstructed justice. Oh, sorry, he "fought back." Why?

My Trump-loving friends have no answers to these questions. I'm waiting. I'm guessing it will be a while.

(03-24-2019 08:55 PM)Boston Owl Wrote:  Democrat here.
I am glad that Mueller did not find that the President or his campaign conspired with the Russians to interfere in the 2016 election. The alternative is too frightening to contemplate.
But let's not lose sight of the big picture.
Mueller found, as all of us know, that the Russians interfered in the 2016 election. Trump denied it for years. Why?

What difference does it make?

Quote:Trump asked Russia, on TV, to hack Clinton's emails during the campaign. Russia tried to do so that same day. What's up with that?

I've heard enough of this. There are problems all over it. First, if you are conspiring, you do it secretly and privately. Saying it on TV almost invalidates the idea of a conspiracy. Second, I got the distinct impression tat it was a punch line designed to get the crowd riled up, and it did. Third, Trump "asked" "the Russians" (or more correctly, stated that he hoped they would) to find Hillary's missing emails, not hack the DNC. Fourth, we don't know for sure that it was "the Russians" who hacked the DNC. There is some indication that the data transfer rates detected were consistently not with hacking but with downloading to a stick drive. Fifth, and this one really strikes me as absurd, attaching any kind of importance to the date implies that somehow "the Russians" didn't hack anything until Trump "asked" them to, and somehow they got everything in place immediately to do it as soon as he "asked." That is just patently absurd in so many ways. I still think the problem that democrats have is that if you acknowledge that "the Russians" have been hacking us for years, then it becomes difficult not to admit that they almost certainly hacked Hillary's non-secure server and messages transmitted over non-secure circuits. So "the Russians" only hacked us because of some quid pro quo with Trump? Really? I was born at night, but not last night.

Quote:Trump's campaign manager gave a Russian intelligence agent 75 pages of polling data during the campaign. Why?

Why not? It was his information to share with whomever he pleased, was he not? And the "Russian intelligence agent" was Manafort's business partner at the time, right? And exactly what was his position in Russian intelligence at the time? Manafort appears tone a sleaze, and Trump probably should never have hired him, but Trump also find him, and you can't attribute his actions Trump.

Quote:Trump pursued a business deal in Russia during the campaign and lied about it. Why?

Who lied to whom, under what conditions? Cohen may have lied about it, but Cohen lied about all sorts of things. Then again it may very well have been Cohen pursuing the deal as a lone wolf. And what is wrong with a private citizen pursuing a business deal? Does he have to stop making a living to run for president?

Quote:Trump and his cronies lied about the Trump Tower meeting with the Russians. Why?

Who told what lie about what, when and where and under what conditions?

Quote:Trump loves Russia. He licked Putin's boots in Helsinki. He tried to eliminate the sanctions against Russia. Etc. Why?

The general rule of diplomacy is that you make nice at summit conferences.

Trump sent US warships into the Black Sea as a demonstration of force against goings-on in Crimea. When did Shrub or Zero do that? By the way, I'm not a fan of that move. I think geography and the Montreux Convention pretty much mean that it is strategically and tactically risky, at best, to try to anything in the Black Sea, which is why I did not get more excited when Shrub and Zero sat on their hands. Trump has been anything but Putin's puppet. He has done any number of things, from encouraging Western Europe to find other energy sources to reduce their dependence on Russian oil, to asking them to step unto the plate defensively, to turning our military loose in Syria, to take a stronger stand against Putin than did his predecessors. He certainly has not asked anyone to "tell Vladimir that I will have more flexibility after the election." He has done enough in this regard that Poland, one of the countries most treated by Russia, wants to name an army base Fort Trump. I really don't see tat Trump has been a pushover for Putin.

Quote:Trump obstructed justice. Oh, sorry, he "fought back." Why?

Exactly what did he do to obstruct justice? Keep in mind what elements are legally required to constitute obstruction of justice. When, where, and how did he exhibit all the required elements? He didn't. He took certain actions that he is constitutionally empowered to do. You have to prove a lot of facts not in evidence to ratchet that up to obstruction. It's not like wiping servers or smashing smart phones.

Quote:My Trump-loving friends have no answers to these questions. I'm waiting. I'm guessing it will be a while.

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.

(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.

(And maybe in the meantime we'll get the Mueller Report itself, not some hack's distillation of it, to help us with some of these questions.)

(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?

(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.

(And maybe in the meantime we'll get the Mueller Report itself, not some hack's distillation of it, to help us with some of these questions.)

Lots of salty tears in this thread. #resist