News Mueller Day - Thursday 4.18.19

[woolfe9998]

Remember when I said weeks ago that there is a difference between "no proof" of collusion which is what Barr wrote in his summary and there being "insufficient evidence" to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. Guess what. From the executive summary:

Second, while the investigation identified numerous links between individuals with ties to the Russian government and individual's associated with the Trump campaign, the evidence was not sufficient to support criminal charges. Among other things, the evidence was not sufficient to charge any campaign official as an unregistered agent of the Russian government or other Russian principal. And our evidence about the June 9, 2016 meeting and Wikileaks release of hacked materials was not sufficient to charge a criminal campaign finance violation. Further, the evidence was not sufficient to charge any member of the Trump campaign conspired with representatives of the Russian government to interfere.

Trump and his people had numerous contacts with the Russians, and knowledge of Russian criminal activities (which they failed to report at the time), had motives to conspire with the Russians (Trump Tower Moscow among other things), and repeatedly lied about all of this. The report says as much many times. But no one who was in on any conversations with the Russians says there was a conspiracy. It's the difference between circumstantial and direct evidence.

Also, consider that the report establishes beyond any doubt that the Russians told the Trump campaign that they had hacked these e-mails. Where is that 400 pound man operating out of his mother's basement now?

 

[zinfamous]

But he wasn't fired and was allowed to carry out his investigation, which did not find anything substantial.

I think it is funny that you guys are dancing around the corpse of the investigation like you've gotten what you wanted.

You have no fucking clue how obstruction works. The exact same command, that didn't go anywhere, is what forced Nixon to resign because he was going to be impeached for the exact same "command that didn't happen."

Exactly the same thing. This is a fact.

You are fucking retarded.

 

[KMFJD]

They can't even enter the thread as they haven't figured out how to deflect/spin it yet.

Moderately curious to what's going on at Fox right now, but not enough of a masochist to turn it on...

some might be starting to see the light

 

[HomerJS]

You have no fucking clue how obstruction works. The exact same command, that didn't go anywhere, is what forced Nixon to resign because he was going to be impeached for the exact same "command that didn't happen."

Exactly the same thing. This is a fact.

You are fucking retarded.

Do we honestly think Slow has any concept of history? My guess he would call it fake history.

 

[Maxima1]

Remember when I said weeks ago that there is a difference between "no proof" of collusion which is what Barr wrote in his summary and there being "insufficient evidence" to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. Guess what. From the executive summary:



Trump and his people had numerous contacts with the Russians, and knowledge of Russian criminal activities (which they failed to report at the time), had motives to conspire with the Russians (Trump Tower Moscow among other things), and repeatedly lied about all of this. The report says as much many times. But no one who was in on any conversations with the Russians says there was a conspiracy. It's the difference between circumstantial and direct evidence.

Also, consider that the report establishes beyond any doubt that the Russians told the Trump campaign that they had hacked these e-mails. Where is that 400 pound man operating out of his mother's basement now?

So why not other statutes like aiding and abetting? It's basically an impossible standard.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1118887775103848449

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Well we now know that our government is a mockery of what it needs to be. Well the democracy's dead but I put my money on NY state when the oligarchy came out of the closet.

 

[Jaskalas]

The Senate won't convict, but I think the Dems aren't counting on that, either. The impeachment could hang over Trump like a cloud (on top of his many horrible acts) and nudge the 2020 vote in the Dems' direction.

"They didn't vote for him because they thought he was a good guy, they did so for other reasons".

It will not help. Only selling voters on hope for a better future will change those votes.

 

[HomerJS]

"They didn't vote for him because they thought he was a good guy, they did so for other reasons".

It will not help. Only selling voters on hope for a better future will change those votes.

They may have to do both. With the overwhelming evidence we've seen to date in the report, not starting impeachment hearings may be shirking their constitutional duty.

 

[woolfe9998]

"They didn't vote for him because they thought he was a good guy, they did so for other reasons".

It will not help. Only selling voters on hope for a better future will change those votes.

Agreed. I think the report is politically very damaging to Trump, but a failed impeachment process isn't the way to bring that out. It would likely backfire. Just let the media discuss it. Next year should focus primarily on a positive message.

If Trump is going to pay for any of this legally (as opposed to politically), it will happen after he's voted out. So let's vote him out.

 

[ivwshane]

Agreed. I think the report is politically very damaging to Trump, but a failed impeachment process isn't the way to bring that out. It would likely backfire. Just let the media discuss it. Next year should focus primarily on a positive message.

If Trump is going to pay for any of this legally (as opposed to politically), it will happen after he's voted out. So let's vote him out.

Yes, that would be the best course of action, politically speaking. However doing what's politically convenient isn't necessarily the same as doing what's right for the country and I think holding the president to a high standard should be one of the primary duties of Congress. If Republicans want to make this political, let them die on that hill.

 

[Maxima1]

They may have to do both. With the overwhelming evidence we've seen to date in the report, not starting impeachment hearings may be shirking their constitutional duty.

i don't even understand how he was able to even run for president with that ridiculous deal he had in motion up to the election. I mean, anyone born elsewhere can't on the suspicion they would have an affinity for the foreign country, yet Trump can run with what looks like bribery in broad daylight.

Seth Abramson:

203/ There's so much in here that's difficult to know how to work with. Mueller credited Cohen's claim that Trump never spoke with him of the *political* implications of a Trump Tower Moscow deal... ...even as Trump told Cohen his candidacy was an "infomercial" for his business.

204/ Moreover, *everyone* involved in the Trump-Rozov tower project, and it's clear that that included *Trump*, believed *Putin* had to *personally* sign off on it. So Trump's candidacy, by his own words, was an "infomercial"... for *Putin*. Why would we conclude *anything* else?

205/ Here's what many don't get: if Trump's Russia policy was—from the start—compromised by his Russian business deals, he can't be president. For *counterintelligence* reasons. It's literally that simple. No president's foreign policy can be beholden to a *secret business deal*.

 

[Indus]

Agreed. I think the report is politically very damaging to Trump, but a failed impeachment process isn't the way to bring that out. It would likely backfire. Just let the media discuss it. Next year should focus primarily on a positive message.

If Trump is going to pay for any of this legally (as opposed to politically), it will happen after he's voted out. So let's vote him out.

Agreed and I think the best case for impeachment will be when Trump refuses to leave the White House as constitutionally mandated, then and only then would you have enough of a concensus that he should be removed and fast.

 

[hal2kilo]

Effing Republicans

Move on nothing to see here.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Effing Republicans

Move on nothing to see here.

Someone should take the report, do a find-replace for all mentions of names and replace with Obama and relevant positions surrounding him, then 'leak' that to Fox to see if it gets traction. I'd love to see the results.

 

[UNCjigga]

some might be starting to see the light

I fear this is just some temporary soul searching by certain public conservatives, before they get their new Giuliani talking points to rally around.

I'm always reminded how conservatives reacted to Christine Blasey Ford's testimony, and within a few hours were rallying around Angry Kavanaugh and Angry Lindsay Graham.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Agreed and I think the best case for impeachment will be when Trump refuses to leave the White House as constitutionally mandated, then and only then would you have enough of a concensus that he should be removed and fast.

He'll leave because if not then he's nothing but a trespasser.

 

[Maxima1]

How is this shit not bribery? How does this not relate to the Trump campaign aiding and abetting Russia in election interference?

 

[HomerJS]

Quote from Trump... Is this the reaction from someone who knows they are innocent??

Trump first learned that Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein appointed Robert Mueller as special counsel from then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions during a meeting to interview candidates for FBI director in May 2017, the report said. Also present were Sessions' chief of staff Jody Hunt and then-White House counsel Don McGahn.After Sessions delivered the news, "the President slumped back in his chair," the report said, "Oh my God. This is terrible. This is the end of my Presidency. I'm fucked,"

 

[Vic]

Effing Republicans

Move on nothing to see here.

Yeah, the right wing spin machine is in full denial mode. Very sad.

 

[zinfamous]

Barr is scheduled to appear before Senate Judiciary Committee May 1. Wonder how he is going to explain away all his lying?

Senate? They will bow before his beneficence and declare the day that the great Barr saved the Trump Empire a national holiday.

 

[jackstar7]

Impeach Barr. Impeach Trump.

End this criminal nonsense and drag all the Rs in Congress still defending Trump into the light to explain themselves.

I'd also like someone to interview Kavanaugh.

 

[soulcougher73]

LOL Could you imagine if this was a report about Obama, the silence from the right would be deafening....

 

[Jaskalas]

Quote from Trump... Is this the reaction from someone who knows they are innocent??

Try the full context. Last lines reveal his thoughts.

 

[Maxima1]

Quote from Trump... Is this the reaction from someone who knows they are innocent??

They exhibited consciousness of guilt in A LOT of ways. Too bad it's almost impossible to catch anyone among the most privileged on anything. Shee-it, the campaign fucking chairman supposedly can't be expected to know the law either.

In the redacted report, Mueller laid out that the events surrounding the meeting could implicate an elections law ban on receiving contributions from foreign nationals. The report states that there are “reasonable arguments” that the offer of damaging information on Clinton would constitute a campaign contribution under the relevant elections law provision.

Yet, the Mueller team concluded that two factors would prevent them from meeting the burden of proof required to file charges.

The first was that they felt they did not have enough evidence to prove that the Trump campaign officials involved in planning and attending the meeting were acting “willfully,” which the report defines as having “general knowledge of the illegality of their conduct.” Mueller’s investigators were unable to find “evidence that the participants in the meeting were familiar with the foreign-contribution ban,” according to the redacted report.

The report adds that Trump Jr. “could mount a factual defense that he did not believe his response to the offer and the June 9 meeting itself violated the law,” and that Jared Kushner could use a similar defense given he was not as involved in setting up the meeting. Mueller’s team also noted that “while [Paul] Manafort is experienced with political campaigns, the Office has not developed evidence showing that he had relevant knowledge of these legal issues.”

Mueller’s team does note in the redacted report that they have evidence of attempts to hide the meeting, they did not find “strong evidence” that those involved tried to conceal the meeting around the time it took place. Because these attempts to hide the meeting occurred much later and included people who did not attend the meeting, those efforts “may reflect an intention to avoid political consequences rather than any prior knowledge of illegality.”

 

[hal2kilo]

They exhibited consciousness of guilt in A LOT of ways. Too bad it's almost impossible to catch anyone among the most privileged on anything. Shee-it, the campaign fucking chairman supposedly can't be expected to know the law either.

In the redacted report, Mueller laid out that the events surrounding the meeting could implicate an elections law ban on receiving contributions from foreign nationals. The report states that there are “reasonable arguments” that the offer of damaging information on Clinton would constitute a campaign contribution under the relevant elections law provision.

Yet, the Mueller team concluded that two factors would prevent them from meeting the burden of proof required to file charges.

The first was that they felt they did not have enough evidence to prove that the Trump campaign officials involved in planning and attending the meeting were acting “willfully,” which the report defines as having “general knowledge of the illegality of their conduct.” Mueller’s investigators were unable to find “evidence that the participants in the meeting were familiar with the foreign-contribution ban,” according to the redacted report.

The report adds that Trump Jr. “could mount a factual defense that he did not believe his response to the offer and the June 9 meeting itself violated the law,” and that Jared Kushner could use a similar defense given he was not as involved in setting up the meeting. Mueller’s team also noted that “while [Paul] Manafort is experienced with political campaigns, the Office has not developed evidence showing that he had relevant knowledge of these legal issues.”

Mueller’s team does note in the redacted report that they have evidence of attempts to hide the meeting, they did not find “strong evidence” that those involved tried to conceal the meeting around the time it took place. Because these attempts to hide the meeting occurred much later and included people who did not attend the meeting, those efforts “may reflect an intention to avoid political consequences rather than any prior knowledge of illegality.”

So now you can claim ignorance of the law. When did this change?