Author Topic: United States of Russia?  (Read 258369 times)

gentmach

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 303
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #1800 on: March 24, 2019, 02:53:44 PM »
Quote
‘while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him’
Attorney general Barr said.

So... we've got a null verdict?

I believe that is in the "obstruction of justice" section. So the collusion is a "No". The obstruction of Justice is "shrug, I'll leave that to the DOJ."

v8rx7guy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1167
  • Location: Bellingham, WA
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #1801 on: March 24, 2019, 02:54:12 PM »
Quote
‘while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him’
Attorney general Barr said.

So... we've got a null verdict?

There were two parts to the investigation.  You are confusing them.  I am pointing out that Barr literally says, "The Special Councel's investigation did not find that the Trump campaign or anyone associated with it conspired or coordinated with Russia in its efforts to influence the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election".  That's what this thread is generally about.

gentmach

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 303
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #1802 on: March 24, 2019, 03:00:09 PM »
Quote
‘while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him’
Attorney general Barr said.

So... we've got a null verdict?

There were two parts to the investigation.  You are confusing them.  I am pointing out that Barr literally says, "The Special Councel's investigation did not find that the Trump campaign or anyone associated with it conspired or coordinated with Russia in its efforts to influence the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election".  That's what this thread is generally about.

I have the feeling that people are going to latch onto that bit about "not exonerating him" and keep this thing going.

I'm relatively young. I will have to hear about this for decades.

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8246
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #1803 on: March 24, 2019, 04:14:05 PM »
"The investigation led by Robert S. Mueller III found that neither President Trump nor any of his aides conspired or coordinated with the Russian government’s 2016 election interference."

Technically, it said they couldn't assemble enough evidence to prove it, not that it didn't happen.  It may be a distinction without a difference to some people, but it bothers me how many folks are jumping to "innocent" when that is definitely not what it says.  It says guilty of a whole laundry list of crimes, and not enough evidence to prove the criminal intent required to charge with conspiracy.  At this point, I'm just assuming that it also says there's not enough evidence to prove criminal intent because Trump's entire team was too incompetent to actually coordinate deliberate criminal activities, and just sort of blundered into them instead.

former player

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4025
  • Location: Avalon
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #1804 on: March 25, 2019, 04:34:30 AM »
"The investigation led by Robert S. Mueller III found that neither President Trump nor any of his aides conspired or coordinated with the Russian government’s 2016 election interference."

Technically, it said they couldn't assemble enough evidence to prove it, not that it didn't happen.  It may be a distinction without a difference to some people, but it bothers me how many folks are jumping to "innocent" when that is definitely not what it says.  It says guilty of a whole laundry list of crimes, and not enough evidence to prove the criminal intent required to charge with conspiracy.  At this point, I'm just assuming that it also says there's not enough evidence to prove criminal intent because Trump's entire team was too incompetent to actually coordinate deliberate criminal activities, and just sort of blundered into them instead.

Also, the report appears to stop short of considering whether there has been collaboration between Trump/Trump officials and Russia since the election.  There have been some funny goings on - Kuchner trying to set up a secret backchannel to Russia without the State Department's involvement, Trump destroying notes of his meetings with Putin - which do not inspire confidence that Trump and his people have the USA's best interests at heart.

partgypsy

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2860
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #1805 on: March 25, 2019, 09:25:28 AM »
I guess my question is, if there was no collusion, why was there so much (obvious) obstruction of justice? I mean lifetime career people had their lives destroyed over this because they were considered in the way or did not stop the probe for Trump. Why did Trump drop sanctions for Russia, refuse to critique Putin for ANYTHING, including illegal acts of Russia like assasination. Why meet with Putin outside normal diplomatic channels? Why was Kushner trying to create a back channel to Russia. These are all highly unusual. 

bacchi

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3508
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #1806 on: March 25, 2019, 09:40:05 AM »
I guess my question is, if there was no collusion, why was there so much (obvious) obstruction of justice? I mean lifetime career people had their lives destroyed over this because they were considered in the way or did not stop the probe for Trump. Why did Trump drop sanctions for Russia, refuse to critique Putin for ANYTHING, including illegal acts of Russia like assasination. Why meet with Putin outside normal diplomatic channels? Why was Kushner trying to create a back channel to Russia. These are all highly unusual.

It's possible that Trump is simply a dumbass and he was played. He was played by his staffers (Flynn and Manafort, etc.) and he was played by the Russians. Sure, he knew about the business deals with Russia but he didn't intend to do damage to the US. He was doing his usual business thing.

As far as not criticizing Putin, Trump loves dictators. It's probably related to narcissism, in that dictators can ensure that everyone "loves" them and dictators don't have to take flak from the media.

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8246
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #1807 on: March 25, 2019, 09:50:47 AM »
I guess my question is, if there was no collusion, why was there so much (obvious) obstruction of justice?

I think Trump will not be prosecuted for the obvious obstruction of justice for the exact same reason he isn't being prosecuted for the obvious collusion.

And let's be clear about this, the report does NOT say there was "no collusion".  The Trump campaign had a variety of secret discussions with Russia to coordinate election strategies.  They shared internal polling data with the Russians.  They hired Russian firms and took Russian clients to better coordinate their online messaging strategies.  They openly asked the Russians to interfere, on national television.  They had secret meetings to exchange information harmful to Clinton.  Through Stone as an intermediary, the Trump campaign negotiated with Russian intelligence services about how to best harm Clinton.  All of that is proven, and is definitely collusion.

But without being able to prove criminal intent, that collusion is not a crime that can be prosecuted, and the Mueller report only says they couldn't prosecute it, not that it didn't happen.  According to Giuliani everyone in the Trump campaign was a a Russian patsy, an unwitting tool of the KGB, who only betrayed America and undermined our democracy by accident, in their pursuit of personal profit and political power.  Trump was happy to accept Russian help, and direct his underlings to facilitate that help, but only because he honestly thought it was fine for Russia to help him win the election.  In this case, he only broke the law by accident and that means you can't prosecute him for it.  He looks like an incompetent stooge, but they can't prove he's a criminal mastermind.

And obstruction has the same criteria.  If it's accidental or incidental obstruction, it's not illegal.  So even though Trump went on 60 Minutes and openly admitted that he fired Comey in order to stop the Mueller investigation, as long as he can claim that he did so because he believed the investigation was pointless and not because he felt the investigation threatened him personally or politically, he's basically in the clear.  Again, he looks like an idiot but not a criminal.  Ignorance of the law appears to be a valid defense, for these crimes.
« Last Edit: March 25, 2019, 11:45:35 AM by sol »

ncornilsen

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 856
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #1808 on: March 25, 2019, 10:28:30 AM »
I guess my question is, if there was no collusion, why was there so much (obvious) obstruction of justice?

I think Trump will not be prosecuted for the obvious obstruction of justice for the exact same reason he isn't being prosecuted for the obvious collusion.

And let's be clear about this, the report does NOT say there was "no collusion".  The Trump campaign had a variety of secret discussions with Russia to coordinate election strategies.  They shared internal polling data with the Russians.  They hired Russian firms and took Russian clients to better coordinate their online messaging strategies.  They openly asked the Russians to interfere, on national television.  They had secret meetings to exchange information harmful to Clinton.  Through Stone as an intermediary, the Trump campaign negotiated with Russian intelligence services about how to best harm Clinton.  All of that is proven, and is definitely collusion.

But without being able to prove criminal intent, that collusion is not a crime that can be prosecuted, and the Mueller report only says they couldn't prosecute it, not that it didn't happen.  According to Giuliani everyone in the Trump campaign was a a Russian patsy, an witting tool of the KGB, who only betrayed America and undermined our democracy by accident, in their pursuit of personal profit and political power.  Trump was happy to accept Russian help, and direct his underlings to facilitate that help, but only because he honestly thought it was fine for Russia to help him win the election.  In this case, he only broke the law by accident and that means you can't prosecute him for it.  He looks like an incompetent stooge, but they can't prove he's a criminal mastermind.

And obstruction has the same criteria.  If it's accidental or incidental obstruction, it's not illegal.  So even though Trump went on 60 Minutes and openly admitted that he fired Comey in order to stop the Mueller investigation, as long as he can claim that he did so because he believed the investigation was pointless and not because he felt the investigation threatened him personally or politically, he's basically in the clear.  Again, he looks like an idiot but not a criminal.  Ignorance of the law appears to be a valid defense, for these crimes.

Like Clinton and the Email server thing.

(Not whataboutism - just trying to remind my right wing cohort that when Clinton was not prosecuted for the email thing, it was because they couldn't prove she was mishandling the emails with criminal intent. Different scale of misconduct, but the same kind of thing where the intent can't be proven and that's the crime.)

Aelias

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 281
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #1809 on: March 25, 2019, 10:41:59 AM »
At this point, if we are ever going to move past this, they need to release the full report and, to the extent possible, the underlying evidentiary record.  Barr's previous writing on Mueller probe has put him in the category of "trust, but verify."  If the report is not released, we as a country will descend further into an endless spiral of conspiracy theory that is bad for everyone and very bad for faith in democracy.  What I am hoping to learn from the full report:

1) On what basis did the Special Counsel find that "the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities."  Did the evidence of contacts between the Trump Campaign and Russian government and non-government actors not demonstrate the requisite plan or agreement to meet the standard of conspiracy or coordination? Is it an evidentiary threshold issue?  Did the Campaign accept help but not participate?

2) Are there key pieces of the record as publicly reported that are just flat out wrong?

3) What did the President know and when did he know it? It's clear enough that there was not evidence sufficient to prove conspiracy or coordination beyond a reasonable doubt.  But if he knew that the Russians were committing these crimes to help his campaign, and not only did not report it to the FBI, but cheered it on and then denied it publicly and embraced a foreign policy platform that was significantly more pro-Russia than the rest of the GOP?  That's a problem. Or was he simply ignorant of the whole thing?

4) What are the facts suggesting for and against obstruction of justice? And why was the Special Counsel unable or unwilling to reach a legal conclusion on the question of obstruction?  Why was this determination delegated to the AG?

The last question, and I'm not sure it's one the Special Counsel can answer, was if there was no collusion or coordination, WHY ALL THE LYING?  By so many people, at the highest levels, at every turn -- weird, secretive behavior and LYING.  WHY?

Honestly, we should all be very happy that a thorough, impartial investigation found that the President did not commit a criminal offense by conpsiring or coordinating with a hostile foreign power to subvert our democracy.  Seems crazy that that would be something to celebrate, but here we are.  But if we're truly going to close the door on this, we need to see what was found and what wasn't.  In other words -- release the report.


JLee

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5337
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #1810 on: March 25, 2019, 10:56:50 AM »
https://twitter.com/SethAbramson/status/1109913558333210629

To save you a click:

Quote
(THREAD) The Barr Summary—a very different document from the Mueller Report—is being woefully misread by media. It doesn't import what media is suggesting it does. Lawyers are welcome to comment on this thread as I report the Summary accurately. I hope you'll read on and retweet.

1/ Mueller was supposed to decide if Donald Trump could be charged with Obstruction of Justice—or, if not chargeable, whether he should be referred to Congress for impeachment for Obstruction of Justice. But AG Barr usurped Mueller's job and decided to make that decision himself.

2/ Barr was selected by Donald Trump upon Trump's reading of documents written by Barr and sent to Trump allies arguing Trump *couldn't* be charged with Obstruction of Justice. So in not forcing Mueller to make the decision his appointment obligated him to make, Barr saved Trump.

3/ Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein, a witness in the Obstruction of Justice investigation against Trump, appears to have assisted Barr—who had already put his position on Obstruction in writing prior to his nomination—in usurping Mueller's obligation to make a decision on that question.

4/ Obstruction of Justice is an impeachable offense, and therefore we now have a *witness* in a case and a man who made his views known on the case *before he had any evidence on it*—and who *got his job* because of his view on the question—saving Trump from impeachment for that.

5/ On "collusion," investigative reporters and independent journalists just spent years gathering evidence on a very specific allegation of collusion: that for his own enrichment, Trump traded away our foreign policy on Russian sanctions at a time he knew Russia was attacking us.

6/ We are now being told that *Mueller never investigated* the collusion allegation Trump was facing—on a money-for-sanctions-relief quid pro quo—and *instead* investigated the allegation *as Trump saw it*, which was whether he struck an agreement with the IRA or Russian hackers.

7/ For two years, as Trump's team defined the collusion allegation against him *falsely*—saying he'd been accused of striking a secret accord with the Internet Research Agency and/or Russian hackers before-the-fact—his critics shrugged and said, "Yeah, we're not looking at that."

8/ On this collusion allegation no one was even making against Trump, the Special Counsel *didn't* find "no evidence"—which I would've been fine with, as I've never accused Trump of that type of collusion—he actually just found he didn't have 90%+ proof of that form of collusion.

9/ This isn't backpedaling: *anyone* who reads this feed—or anyone else researching and reporting on collusion—will *know* that we did *not* accuse Trump of striking a *secret deal with the IRA or Russian hackers before-the-fact*, and that "collusion" has *never* been about that.

10/ So we alleged Obstruction—and people *ineligible to make a decision on that issue* made the decision. We alleged collusive activity—and it appears the activity we alleged was *never investigated*. *That* is how critics of Trump should be seeing what has just happened. *That*.

11/ What will happen now is that Trump will say that Mueller found no Obstruction—false, because Mueller made no conclusion on that (though he was supposed to). Trump will then say that Mueller found no *collusion*, and *that* will be wrong on *two* separate and distinct grounds.

12/ The *first* way in which Trump's coming statement will be wrong on collusion is that the collusion he was actually *accused* of wasn't fully investigated—or perhaps not investigated at all. The *second* issue is, Mueller said he "didn't exonerate" Trump as to *any* collusion.

13/ American discourse surrounding Mueller's investigation is at this moment in *dire* danger—because most in the media don't understand either point I've made here: that a proper Obstruction finding *was never made*, and that a full collusion investigation *was never conducted*.

14/ So what does it all mean? Well, as the Obstruction determination was *not* made by Mueller—and was improperly made by Barr and Rosenstein—it now falls to Congress to review the underlying evidence and, if House Judiciary finds it appropriate, initiate impeachment proceedings.

15/ As to collusion, 1) it continues to be *properly* investigated—not in the narrow way Trump demanded and apparently Mueller's team acceded to—in *multiple other federal jurisdictions*; 2) the inability to indict on the *investigated* collusion is *not* an inability to impeach.

16/ So what's my reaction to today's news? Well, I thought there was *no* evidence Trump colluded *via secret agreement with the IRA or Russian hackers*—I always said that—so *now* I want to know why Mueller said he wasn't able to "exonerate" Trump on that allegation. I mean—wow.

17/ As to the collusion allegations never investigated—as opposed to the ones Trump self-servingly *himself* raised only because he knew he wasn't guilty of *those*—my feeling is that there are now *19 federal jurisdictions* working on Trump probes that could resolve that issue.

18/ Moreover, some of those jurisdictions being Congressional, and many working on cases involving people never interviewed by the SCO face-to-face—Trump, Trump Jr., Prince, Ivanka, and so many others—I feel like we're only at the *beginning* of the real collusion investigation.

19/ On Obstruction, once Congress gets all Mueller's hard evidence, they should proceed with impeachment (or at worst, wait for other federal prosecutors to finish their collusion investigations). Why? Because if the *public evidence* made a prima face case—it did—so did Mueller.

20/ I ask people to retweet this thread. Misinformation spreads fast—the nation already misunderstands what happened today, as media wrongly uses terms like "exoneration," "vindication," and "collusion." As for fellow lawyers? Come at me if you disagree with anything I said. /end

PS/ As ever, my concern about the media *isn't* an accusation of bad faith: I think people are rushing—and don't understand certain things they *need* to understand to do their jobs well tonight, like *what the collusion allegation actually was*—so threads like this are critical.

PS2/ That the first "defense" to the Mueller Report from Team Trump is Giuliani saying you can't commit Obstruction of Justice if there's no (beyond-a-reasonable-doubt-proof-level) crime—a *flatly false legal statement no attorney agrees with*—tells you that they have *concerns*.

PS3/ The *second* defense—a Trump tweet, "No obstruction. No collusion. Total and complete exoneration!"—is also completely false, which *again* should communicate to everyone that Team Trump is terrified about not just the truth of the Report but even the truth of Barr's letter.

PS4/ For two years, I said we needed a *clear* definition of "collusion" or we would pay the price down the line, and now here we are—with Mueller narrowly defining collusion not just as "conspiracy" but only *one narrow breed* of conspiracy (with the IRA and/or Russian hackers).

PS5/ Mueller wasn't even *consulted* on Barr's letter, as we'd been promised he would. Folks, Trump is now on TV saying "no collusion with Russia"—again, a far broader issue than Mueller conducted—and if people of sense don't talk back publicly *now*, we will all regret it later.

NOTE/ The answer to sensible questions like the one below is simple: the accusation of collusion Trump faced, and was terrified of, is *not* the one that the Mueller Report appears to have looked at. Instead, Mueller focused on the IRA and Russian hackers.Seth Abramson added,

NOTE2/ No fellow attorneys are questioning this thread thus far—either on the law or the facts of the collusion investigation as we know it to exist. On Obstruction, what I've expressed here is already becoming key legal analysts' view; on collusion, I hear no contradictions yet.

NOTE3/ Some folks add, rightly, that Mueller only found no beyond-a-reasonable-doubt evidence of collusion with the Russian "government"—the IRA, GRU officials, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs—none of whom Trump was ever accused of colluding with. Rep. Heck just said this on CNN.

NOTE4/ Barr appears to have *avoided* any reference to Team Trump collusion with Russian foreign nationals and Kremlin cutouts like Agalarov, Rozov, Vekselberg, Deripaska, Firtash, Sater, Kilimnik, Boyarkin, Akhmetshin, and *so many others* who are *not* "the Russian government."

NOTE5/ We have an *indication* from today's "Barr Summary"—but we'll need to see the Mueller Report—that the Barr Summary mentioned the "Russian government" only because Mueller's focus was on the IRA and GRU alone, which again is *not* what Trump stood accused of collusion-wise.

Glenstache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2090
  • Location: Seattle!
  • Target FI date 2027 (maybe?)
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #1811 on: March 25, 2019, 11:25:16 AM »
I guess my question is, if there was no collusion, why was there so much (obvious) obstruction of justice?

I think Trump will not be prosecuted for the obvious obstruction of justice for the exact same reason he isn't being prosecuted for the obvious collusion.

And let's be clear about this, the report does NOT say there was "no collusion".  The Trump campaign had a variety of secret discussions with Russia to coordinate election strategies.  They shared internal polling data with the Russians.  They hired Russian firms and took Russian clients to better coordinate their online messaging strategies.  They openly asked the Russians to interfere, on national television.  They had secret meetings to exchange information harmful to Clinton.  Through Stone as an intermediary, the Trump campaign negotiated with Russian intelligence services about how to best harm Clinton.  All of that is proven, and is definitely collusion.

But without being able to prove criminal intent, that collusion is not a crime that can be prosecuted, and the Mueller report only says they couldn't prosecute it, not that it didn't happen.  According to Giuliani everyone in the Trump campaign was a a Russian patsy, an witting tool of the KGB, who only betrayed America and undermined our democracy by accident, in their pursuit of personal profit and political power.  Trump was happy to accept Russian help, and direct his underlings to facilitate that help, but only because he honestly thought it was fine for Russia to help him win the election.  In this case, he only broke the law by accident and that means you can't prosecute him for it.  He looks like an incompetent stooge, but they can't prove he's a criminal mastermind.

And obstruction has the same criteria.  If it's accidental or incidental obstruction, it's not illegal.  So even though Trump went on 60 Minutes and openly admitted that he fired Comey in order to stop the Mueller investigation, as long as he can claim that he did so because he believed the investigation was pointless and not because he felt the investigation threatened him personally or politically, he's basically in the clear.  Again, he looks like an idiot but not a criminal.  Ignorance of the law appears to be a valid defense, for these crimes.
Saying that he did not think the investigation was damaging to him personally would be a bit of a stretch given how much Twitter-ink has been dedicated to how poorly he has been treated, etc, etc.

Pooplips

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 459
  • Age: 32
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #1812 on: March 25, 2019, 11:27:38 AM »
My gut tells me this will go in for all of eternity.

shenlong55

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 486
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Kentucky
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #1813 on: March 25, 2019, 11:39:35 AM »

bacchi

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3508
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #1814 on: March 25, 2019, 11:43:45 AM »
My gut tells me this will go in for all of eternity.

At least until the "Lock her up!" chants stop. And the "But, but, Benghazi!" cries.

It does have some legitimate legs, though. There are multiple (19, apparently) federal investigations going on right now concerning Trump. Some are looking at his financial misdeeds, both past and relatively present, and at least one is looking at the $500k Cohen received from a Russian plutocrat.

gentmach

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 303
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #1815 on: March 25, 2019, 03:21:15 PM »
I guess my question is, if there was no collusion, why was there so much (obvious) obstruction of justice?

I think Trump will not be prosecuted for the obvious obstruction of justice for the exact same reason he isn't being prosecuted for the obvious collusion.

And let's be clear about this, the report does NOT say there was "no collusion".  The Trump campaign had a variety of secret discussions with Russia to coordinate election strategies.  They shared internal polling data with the Russians.  They hired Russian firms and took Russian clients to better coordinate their online messaging strategies.  They openly asked the Russians to interfere, on national television.  They had secret meetings to exchange information harmful to Clinton.  Through Stone as an intermediary, the Trump campaign negotiated with Russian intelligence services about how to best harm Clinton.  All of that is proven, and is definitely collusion.

But without being able to prove criminal intent, that collusion is not a crime that can be prosecuted, and the Mueller report only says they couldn't prosecute it, not that it didn't happen.  According to Giuliani everyone in the Trump campaign was a a Russian patsy, an unwitting tool of the KGB, who only betrayed America and undermined our democracy by accident, in their pursuit of personal profit and political power.  Trump was happy to accept Russian help, and direct his underlings to facilitate that help, but only because he honestly thought it was fine for Russia to help him win the election.  In this case, he only broke the law by accident and that means you can't prosecute him for it.  He looks like an incompetent stooge, but they can't prove he's a criminal mastermind.

And obstruction has the same criteria.  If it's accidental or incidental obstruction, it's not illegal.  So even though Trump went on 60 Minutes and openly admitted that he fired Comey in order to stop the Mueller investigation, as long as he can claim that he did so because he believed the investigation was pointless and not because he felt the investigation threatened him personally or politically, he's basically in the clear.  Again, he looks like an idiot but not a criminal.  Ignorance of the law appears to be a valid defense, for these crimes.

Glen Greenwald has a response for this.

https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1110143590842421248?s=20

As for those trying the angle that collusion existed but poor little Mueller just couldn't find it: please. That may be the most embarrassing & insulting excuse of all. For 20 months, all we heard was he had assembled the most aggressive & skilled team ever. This is what they did

« Last Edit: March 25, 2019, 03:23:58 PM by gentmach »

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8246
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #1816 on: March 25, 2019, 04:07:07 PM »
Glen Greenwald has a response for this.

You seem to have misunderstood.  When I said the Mueller investigation was unable to prosecute for conspiracy, I did not mean because they did a shoddy job or were incompetent.  I meant that there was legitimately insufficient evidence to build a solid case proving criminal intent rather than general profiteering and thuggery.  Despite eight different corners of Trump's organization colluding with Russia, all of which are being prosecuted, the defense of Trump himself is that he did so while apparently thinking it was legal.

This defense is belied by the million times Trump lied about it, though. 

And as pointed out above, the Mueller investigation appears to have been severely handicapped into only investigation specific kinds of collusion with Russia, instead of all of it.  The people Trump appointed to oversee it, Barr and Rosenstein, were both severely compromised from the outset and promised to undermine the findings before even seeing the evidence.  It shouldn't surprise anyone that they have now done so. 

The only way America gets out of this alive is if the entire Mueller report is made public, rather than the summary written by a Trump toady.  If it genuinely does say "Trump is innocent" in it, then let America read it for themselves and then we can all move on to other things.  Unfortunately, I fear that this report going to be just like Trump's tax returns, shrouded in secrecy and obstruction even as he insists it would totally exonerate him if released, while he refuses to release it. 

If you really have nothing to hide, why are you hiding so much?

JLee

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5337
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #1817 on: March 25, 2019, 04:10:49 PM »
Glen Greenwald has a response for this.

You seem to have misunderstood.  When I said the Mueller investigation was unable to prosecute for conspiracy, I did not mean because they did a shoddy job or were incompetent.  I meant that there was legitimately insufficient evidence to build a solid case proving criminal intent rather than general profiteering and thuggery.  Despite eight different corners of Trump's organization colluding with Russia, all of which are being prosecuted, the defense of Trump himself is that he did so while apparently thinking it was legal.

This defense is belied by the million times Trump lied about it, though. 

And as pointed out above, the Mueller investigation appears to have been severely handicapped into only investigation specific kinds of collusion with Russia, instead of all of it.  The people Trump appointed to oversee it, Barr and Rosenstein, were both severely compromised from the outset and promised to undermine the findings before even seeing the evidence.  It shouldn't surprise anyone that they have now done so. 

The only way America gets out of this alive is if the entire Mueller report is made public, rather than the summary written by a Trump toady.  If it genuinely does say "Trump is innocent" in it, then let America read it for themselves and then we can all move on to other things.  Unfortunately, I fear that this report going to be just like Trump's tax returns, shrouded in secrecy and obstruction even as he insists it would totally exonerate him if released, while he refuses to release it. 

If you really have nothing to hide, why are you hiding so much?

From the twitter link/analysis above:
Quote
NOTE3/ Some folks add, rightly, that Mueller only found no beyond-a-reasonable-doubt evidence of collusion with the Russian "government"—the IRA, GRU officials, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs—none of whom Trump was ever accused of colluding with. Rep. Heck just said this on CNN.

NOTE4/ Barr appears to have *avoided* any reference to Team Trump collusion with Russian foreign nationals and Kremlin cutouts like Agalarov, Rozov, Vekselberg, Deripaska, Firtash, Sater, Kilimnik, Boyarkin, Akhmetshin, and *so many others* who are *not* "the Russian government."

NOTE5/ We have an *indication* from today's "Barr Summary"—but we'll need to see the Mueller Report—that the Barr Summary mentioned the "Russian government" only because Mueller's focus was on the IRA and GRU alone, which again is *not* what Trump stood accused of collusion-wise.

Glenstache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2090
  • Location: Seattle!
  • Target FI date 2027 (maybe?)
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #1818 on: March 25, 2019, 06:04:05 PM »
Well, at least some things are constant. Mitch McConnell is using the Mueller Report to place blame for Russian meddling on Obama.
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/mcconnell-uses-mueller-report-to-place-blame-on-obama

McConnell knows no shame.

jrhampt

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1064
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Connecticut

Pooplips

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 459
  • Age: 32
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #1820 on: April 10, 2019, 12:04:45 PM »
 
If you really have nothing to hide, why are you hiding so much?

Haha. This line is amazing.

Glenstache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2090
  • Location: Seattle!
  • Target FI date 2027 (maybe?)
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #1821 on: April 18, 2019, 10:08:48 AM »
Welp. At long last a (redacted) copy of the Mueller Report is available. Here's a link to a downloadable PDF of the report, oy you can just read it there (link in page).
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/read-text-full-mueller-report-n994551

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 12919
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #1822 on: April 18, 2019, 10:16:24 AM »
Welp. At long last a (redacted) copy of the Mueller Report is available. Here's a link to a downloadable PDF of the report, oy you can just read it there (link in page).
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/read-text-full-mueller-report-n994551

The unredacted version will no doubt be available in another few months as well. I think that the Republicans have been very smart about this though.  They hired a guy who lied about the content of the report to Americans, then grudgingly released the redacted report (after first holding a full on press conference to put their spin on it), and will eventually release the full report . . . but by that time they will have stamped so much of their interpretation and message onto it that I think the public will have lost much of the outrage that it would otherwise have generated.

The Republicans certainly know how to manipulate Americans to further their own ends.

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3823
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #1823 on: April 18, 2019, 10:33:41 AM »
Welp. At long last a (redacted) copy of the Mueller Report is available. Here's a link to a downloadable PDF of the report, oy you can just read it there (link in page).
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/read-text-full-mueller-report-n994551

The unredacted version will no doubt be available in another few months as well. I think that the Republicans have been very smart about this though.  They hired a guy who lied about the content of the report to Americans, then grudgingly released the redacted report (after first holding a full on press conference to put their spin on it), and will eventually release the full report . . . but by that time they will have stamped so much of their interpretation and message onto it that I think the public will have lost much of the outrage that it would otherwise have generated.

The Republicans certainly know how to manipulate Americans to further their own ends.

Yep.

Turns out that when all you care about is winning, and you don't care who or what you take a flaming shit on in the process, you can really make some headway over the competition.

gentmach

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 303
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #1824 on: April 18, 2019, 11:19:11 AM »
Welp. At long last a (redacted) copy of the Mueller Report is available. Here's a link to a downloadable PDF of the report, oy you can just read it there (link in page).
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/read-text-full-mueller-report-n994551

The unredacted version will no doubt be available in another few months as well. I think that the Republicans have been very smart about this though.  They hired a guy who lied about the content of the report to Americans, then grudgingly released the redacted report (after first holding a full on press conference to put their spin on it), and will eventually release the full report . . . but by that time they will have stamped so much of their interpretation and message onto it that I think the public will have lost much of the outrage that it would otherwise have generated.

The Republicans certainly know how to manipulate Americans to further their own ends.

If cable news ratings are any indication, the Bar summary a few weeks ago already crippled the outrage.

GreenEggs

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 660
  • Location: Here & There
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #1825 on: April 18, 2019, 11:20:10 AM »
MAGA!!

By the River

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 149
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #1826 on: April 18, 2019, 11:27:32 AM »
Just started reading the report.  One quote from the introduction is   "...the Russian government perceived that it would benefit from a Trump presidency..."

Do you think that Russia has benefited from Trump's first two years versus Clinton's hypothetical first two years?

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3823
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #1827 on: April 18, 2019, 11:46:15 AM »
Just started reading the report.  One quote from the introduction is   "...the Russian government perceived that it would benefit from a Trump presidency..."

Do you think that Russia has benefited from Trump's first two years versus Clinton's hypothetical first two years?

Um.... yep.

With Trump at the helm, the GOP has basically backed away from bothering to investigate any Russian interference in our elections, our government, and probably even cyberespionage.

The Transatlantic alliance has been seriously weakened because of Trump, which is awesome for Putin.

America's position of dominance in the global order is decreasing, which is also awesome for Putin.

Trump is destabilizing the US from within, which Putin loves.

The EU has been weakened, which Putin loves.

That's just the stuff I can think of off the top of my head.

v8rx7guy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1167
  • Location: Bellingham, WA
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #1828 on: April 18, 2019, 12:19:48 PM »
Just started reading the report.  One quote from the introduction is   "...the Russian government perceived that it would benefit from a Trump presidency..."

Do you think that Russia has benefited from Trump's first two years versus Clinton's hypothetical first two years?

"Although the investigation established that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome, and that the Campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts, the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities."

Pooplips

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 459
  • Age: 32
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #1829 on: April 18, 2019, 12:47:46 PM »
Just started reading the report.  One quote from the introduction is   "...the Russian government perceived that it would benefit from a Trump presidency..."

Do you think that Russia has benefited from Trump's first two years versus Clinton's hypothetical first two years?

"Although the investigation established that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome, and that the Campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts, the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities."

#ContextMatters

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8246
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #1830 on: April 18, 2019, 01:17:59 PM »
Just started reading the report.  One quote from the introduction is   "...the Russian government perceived that it would benefit from a Trump presidency..."

Do you think that Russia has benefited from Trump's first two years versus Clinton's hypothetical first two years?

"Although the investigation established that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome, and that the Campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts, the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities."

#ContextMatters

In this case, the context appears to be that the investigation DID establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired and coordinated with individual Russians in their election interference activities.  The distinction matters, because apparently working with employees of the Russian government is not the same as working with the Russian government? 

talltexan

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2244
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #1831 on: April 18, 2019, 01:21:12 PM »
Just started reading the report.  One quote from the introduction is   "...the Russian government perceived that it would benefit from a Trump presidency..."

Do you think that Russia has benefited from Trump's first two years versus Clinton's hypothetical first two years?

Um.... yep.

With Trump at the helm, the GOP has basically backed away from bothering to investigate any Russian interference in our elections, our government, and probably even cyberespionage.

The Transatlantic alliance has been seriously weakened because of Trump, which is awesome for Putin.

America's position of dominance in the global order is decreasing, which is also awesome for Putin.

Trump is destabilizing the US from within, which Putin loves.

The EU has been weakened, which Putin loves.

That's just the stuff I can think of off the top of my head.

Ending the sanctions Obama put in place when Russian assets invaded Crimea.

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8246
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #1832 on: April 18, 2019, 11:32:13 PM »
Today's new from the Mueller report looks pretty damning.  It says Trump's team wanted and accepted Russia's help swinging the election.  It says Trump is guilty of multiple instances of obstruction of justice.  Then it refuses to bring charges for either of those crimes, basically citing DOJ precedent that says they can't indict a sitting president.

This is a very different conclusion than William Barr gave in his "summary" memo, and it is a very different conclusion than what Trump is saying to tv cameras and on twitter.  Far from being an exoneration or a vindication, it says he is guilty but they can't touch him until he leaves office.  Basically, Mueller says only Congress has the power to do anything about it, but he laid out all of the evidence for them to use.

Even the Trump Tower meeting between Don Jr. and Jared and the Russians is punted.  Mueller agrees that it's a crime, but apparently chose not to press charges because the Trump team was so inept they didn't know they were breaking the law.  I'm not sure that feigned ignorance is a good legal defense, but it does seem to have worked in this case.

I'm still unclear on why the Stormy Daniels payments aren't a campaign finance violation.  Maybe that case is still being prosecuted separately?

gentmach

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 303
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #1833 on: April 19, 2019, 01:51:37 AM »
Today's new from the Mueller report looks pretty damning.  It says Trump's team wanted and accepted Russia's help swinging the election.  It says Trump is guilty of multiple instances of obstruction of justice.  Then it refuses to bring charges for either of those crimes, basically citing DOJ precedent that says they can't indict a sitting president.

This is a very different conclusion than William Barr gave in his "summary" memo, and it is a very different conclusion than what Trump is saying to tv cameras and on twitter.  Far from being an exoneration or a vindication, it says he is guilty but they can't touch him until he leaves office.  Basically, Mueller says only Congress has the power to do anything about it, but he laid out all of the evidence for them to use.

Even the Trump Tower meeting between Don Jr. and Jared and the Russians is punted.  Mueller agrees that it's a crime, but apparently chose not to press charges because the Trump team was so inept they didn't know they were breaking the law.  I'm not sure that feigned ignorance is a good legal defense, but it does seem to have worked in this case.

I'm still unclear on why the Stormy Daniels payments aren't a campaign finance violation.  Maybe that case is still being prosecuted separately?






Actually it says the Russians wanted to help and Trump campaign expected help but never actually coordinated.

The entire question was "is there enough evidence to meet the standard of the law?" The answer seems to be "no." Whether through craft or cunning the evidence simply wasn't there. And feigning ignorance works if they can't prove that you are feigning ignorance.

The Mueller Investigation spun off 14 other investigations. Stormy Daniels case is most likely one of those.

JLee

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5337
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #1834 on: April 19, 2019, 08:26:02 AM »
jfc, chill with the giant images. I'm on a 4k display and it still takes half of the entire screen.

gentmach

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 303
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #1835 on: April 19, 2019, 08:34:39 AM »
jfc, chill with the giant images. I'm on a 4k display and it still takes half of the entire screen.

Borrowed the link from Glenn Greenwald, who got them from PBS.
Wasn't sure how to fix them without possibly nullifying the link.

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8246
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #1836 on: April 19, 2019, 09:02:37 AM »
Actually it says the Russians wanted to help and Trump campaign expected help but never actually coordinated.

No.  It says the Russians wanted to help, and DID help, in many different ways, because they thought Trump would support Russian interests better than Clinton would.  It also says that Trump's team knew about the Russian efforts, and expected to benefit from Russian interference.  Then it lays out in excruciating detail all of the different ways the Russians worked to help Trump, and the ways that Trump's team worked to help the Russians help Trump.  Then it concludes that they can't prove both sides didn't just independently want to work towards the same goals, and without criminal intent they can't prosecute for conspiracy.  It was just coincidental collusion.  Like Manafort sharing internal polling data with the Russians was just because he thought they would be interested in it, not because he told them to use it to help Trump.

But I didn't say that he was guilty of conspiracy, I said "It says Trump is guilty of multiple instances of obstruction of justice."  And it does go into great detail on that charge, explicitly stating that they have more than enough evidence to bring a criminal case, but chose not to just because he's the President.  The Mueller report even clearly says that only Congress can do anything about these crimes, and the DoJ cannot.

Quote
The entire question was "is there enough evidence to meet the standard of the law?" The answer seems to be "no."

On the obstruction charge, the answer is very definitely "yes."

For reference, both Nixon and Clinton were nailed for obstruction.  Of course, they had more independent legislative branches that actually cared about little things like the law.  I think Trump is teflon as long as Mitch McConnell controls the Senate.  He's totally protected and can do pretty much whatever he wants, because Congress has refused to check his power in any way.  Conspiracy and obstruction are fine.  Pussy grabbing and rawdogging porn stars are fine.  Lying to the public is fine.  Grovelling before Russia is fine.  None of it matters until republicans lose the majority.
« Last Edit: April 19, 2019, 09:06:02 AM by sol »

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9885
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #1837 on: April 19, 2019, 09:42:54 AM »
On the whole, I don't see how this report can be anything but a net-negative for DJT and this administration

The most favorable read for the president seems to be that - because it did not result in additional indictments (beyond those already levied) and because the president has escaped prosecution it could have been much worse.

The report does confirm and provide substantial context for several issues

  • Russia actively interfered in the 2016 election to support DJT and undermine HRC
  • The Trump Campaign knew about, welcomed and encouraged such interference by Russia
  • The Trump Campaign had "numerous" contacts and "substantial" interaction with Russian operatives
  • Trump himself repeatedly asked subordinates to lie and break the law on his behalf
  • Five individuals close to Trump and his campaign are guilty of criminal conduct, and a sixth (Stone) is on trial.
  • There are no fewer than 12 ongoing additional investigations into Trump, his campaign and his businesses

In sum, the report confirms Russian interference and describes numerous incidents where the now-president lied and encouraged others to lie. Beyond the aforementioned previous indictments most of this conduct either didn't rise to level of criminal activity or was deemed to be difficult to prove (e.g. a person's intent).  However, "it was not technically illegal" is a much lower standard than "it was appropriate and above-board".

About the most beneficial aspect of this report is that it was released in April 2019 - and will likely be a distant memory by the time the primaries are wrapped up.  I'm betting its unlikely that any of his biggest supporters or critics will change their mind over this report.  Ironically, Trump's saving grace from prosecution seems to be that -repeatedly - his advisors refused to break the law when asked to by Trump.

Regarding whether this amounted to obstruction, Mueller was careful to point out that his investigation did not exonerate him:
If we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts, that the president clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, we are unable to reach that judgment.

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3823
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #1838 on: April 19, 2019, 09:47:31 AM »
On the whole, I don't see how this report can be anything but a net-negative for DJT and this administration



Clearly, Trump thinks so, too -- since the report he was saying yesterday "totally exonerates" him is the same report he's calling "total bullshit" today. LMAO

Glenstache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2090
  • Location: Seattle!
  • Target FI date 2027 (maybe?)
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #1839 on: April 19, 2019, 09:53:49 AM »
Actually it says the Russians wanted to help and Trump campaign expected help but never actually coordinated.

No.  It says the Russians wanted to help, and DID help, in many different ways, because they thought Trump would support Russian interests better than Clinton would.  It also says that Trump's team knew about the Russian efforts, and expected to benefit from Russian interference.  Then it lays out in excruciating detail all of the different ways the Russians worked to help Trump, and the ways that Trump's team worked to help the Russians help Trump.  Then it concludes that they can't prove both sides didn't just independently want to work towards the same goals, and without criminal intent they can't prosecute for conspiracy.  It was just coincidental collusion.  Like Manafort sharing internal polling data with the Russians was just because he thought they would be interested in it, not because he told them to use it to help Trump.

But I didn't say that he was guilty of conspiracy, I said "It says Trump is guilty of multiple instances of obstruction of justice."  And it does go into great detail on that charge, explicitly stating that they have more than enough evidence to bring a criminal case, but chose not to just because he's the President.  The Mueller report even clearly says that only Congress can do anything about these crimes, and the DoJ cannot.

Quote
The entire question was "is there enough evidence to meet the standard of the law?" The answer seems to be "no."

On the obstruction charge, the answer is very definitely "yes."

For reference, both Nixon and Clinton were nailed for obstruction.  Of course, they had more independent legislative branches that actually cared about little things like the law.  I think Trump is teflon as long as Mitch McConnell controls the Senate.  He's totally protected and can do pretty much whatever he wants, because Congress has refused to check his power in any way.  Conspiracy and obstruction are fine.  Pussy grabbing and rawdogging porn stars are fine.  Lying to the public is fine.  Grovelling before Russia is fine.  None of it matters until republicans lose the majority.

Taking the assumption that in lieu of being president there would be enough to indict, this raises the interesting question of what happens to DJT on January 21, 2021 (or 2025, god forbid). Will we see a bunch of pardons fly out the window on the morning of Jan 20? I don't see a path in which this does not get a lot uglier, either through erosion of law or just ugly politics, unless Mitch decides it is more politically expedient to turn on Caesar.

gentmach

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 303
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #1840 on: April 19, 2019, 11:28:05 AM »
Actually it says the Russians wanted to help and Trump campaign expected help but never actually coordinated.

No.  It says the Russians wanted to help, and DID help, in many different ways, because they thought Trump would support Russian interests better than Clinton would.  It also says that Trump's team knew about the Russian efforts, and expected to benefit from Russian interference.  Then it lays out in excruciating detail all of the different ways the Russians worked to help Trump, and the ways that Trump's team worked to help the Russians help Trump.  Then it concludes that they can't prove both sides didn't just independently want to work towards the same goals, and without criminal intent they can't prosecute for conspiracy.  It was just coincidental collusion.  Like Manafort sharing internal polling data with the Russians was just because he thought they would be interested in it, not because he told them to use it to help Trump.

But I didn't say that he was guilty of conspiracy, I said "It says Trump is guilty of multiple instances of obstruction of justice."  And it does go into great detail on that charge, explicitly stating that they have more than enough evidence to bring a criminal case, but chose not to just because he's the President.  The Mueller report even clearly says that only Congress can do anything about these crimes, and the DoJ cannot.

Quote
The entire question was "is there enough evidence to meet the standard of the law?" The answer seems to be "no."

On the obstruction charge, the answer is very definitely "yes."

For reference, both Nixon and Clinton were nailed for obstruction.  Of course, they had more independent legislative branches that actually cared about little things like the law.  I think Trump is teflon as long as Mitch McConnell controls the Senate.  He's totally protected and can do pretty much whatever he wants, because Congress has refused to check his power in any way.  Conspiracy and obstruction are fine.  Pussy grabbing and rawdogging porn stars are fine.  Lying to the public is fine.  Grovelling before Russia is fine.  None of it matters until republicans lose the majority.

As long as the collusion angle is done. Obstruction of Justice is just as you said. No practical way forward for the time being.

On the whole, I don't see how this report can be anything but a net-negative for DJT and this administration

The most favorable read for the president seems to be that - because it did not result in additional indictments (beyond those already levied) and because the president has escaped prosecution it could have been much worse.

The report does confirm and provide substantial context for several issues

  • Russia actively interfered in the 2016 election to support DJT and undermine HRC
  • The Trump Campaign knew about, welcomed and encouraged such interference by Russia
  • The Trump Campaign had "numerous" contacts and "substantial" interaction with Russian operatives
  • Trump himself repeatedly asked subordinates to lie and break the law on his behalf
  • Five individuals close to Trump and his campaign are guilty of criminal conduct, and a sixth (Stone) is on trial.
  • There are no fewer than 12 ongoing additional investigations into Trump, his campaign and his businesses

In sum, the report confirms Russian interference and describes numerous incidents where the now-president lied and encouraged others to lie. Beyond the aforementioned previous indictments most of this conduct either didn't rise to level of criminal activity or was deemed to be difficult to prove (e.g. a person's intent).  However, "it was not technically illegal" is a much lower standard than "it was appropriate and above-board".

About the most beneficial aspect of this report is that it was released in April 2019 - and will likely be a distant memory by the time the primaries are wrapped up.  I'm betting its unlikely that any of his biggest supporters or critics will change their mind over this report.  Ironically, Trump's saving grace from prosecution seems to be that -repeatedly - his advisors refused to break the law when asked to by Trump.

Regarding whether this amounted to obstruction, Mueller was careful to point out that his investigation did not exonerate him:
If we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts, that the president clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, we are unable to reach that judgment.


The Russia situation seems to never been a big problem for people, at least according to Gallup. (https://news.gallup.com/poll/1675/most-important-problem.aspx) it never got more than 1% on the list. The release of the Mueller report just tying up loose ends.

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9885
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #1841 on: April 19, 2019, 11:42:05 AM »

The Russia situation seems to never been a big problem for people, at least according to Gallup. (https://news.gallup.com/poll/1675/most-important-problem.aspx) it never got more than 1% on the list. The release of the Mueller report just tying up loose ends.

I'm not sure that poll supports your statement above - just because almost no one lists Russian interference as "the most important problem" doesn't mean that people don't find it to be a 'big' problem.
I'm certainly one who thinks Russian interference in our elections is a serious issue, but not the biggest one we face.

By your standards foreign trade, abortion, gun control, terrorism, social security and income inequality are also issues that aren't a big problem for people.

ReadySetMillionaire

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 937
  • Location: The Buckeye State
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #1842 on: April 19, 2019, 01:30:31 PM »
https://twitter.com/SethAbramson/status/1109913558333210629

To save you a click:

***Seth Abramson Tweet Thread***

Just wanted to go back to someone citing Seth Abramson as a credible source; who yesterday did a FOUR HUNDRED AND FIFTY ONE WORD (451) tweet storm, that ended in him basically saying, "I'll get to the obstruction analysis tomorrow."

The guy is a total tinfoil hat loon (my recollection is that he also had similar diatribes as to why Bernie was going to win the 2016 primary), and yet he's somehow been deemed legitimate by the far, far left. He's seriously insane.

***

Reaction to the Mueller Report, overall, is that it's full of damning information, and in my opinion prosecutorial misjudgment (in a ton of ways). It's also no surprise both sides are cherry-picking parts of the report to support their base.

Put me in the camp of let's move on and use the ballot box as the test rather than impeachment proceedings (which I don't think would be successful given the constitutional requirements, and would only further tear the country apart).

JLee

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5337
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #1843 on: April 19, 2019, 01:45:08 PM »
https://twitter.com/SethAbramson/status/1109913558333210629

To save you a click:

***Seth Abramson Tweet Thread***

Just wanted to go back to someone citing Seth Abramson as a credible source; who yesterday did a FOUR HUNDRED AND FIFTY ONE WORD (451) tweet storm, that ended in him basically saying, "I'll get to the obstruction analysis tomorrow."

The guy is a total tinfoil hat loon (my recollection is that he also had similar diatribes as to why Bernie was going to win the 2016 primary), and yet he's somehow been deemed legitimate by the far, far left. He's seriously insane.

***

Reaction to the Mueller Report, overall, is that it's full of damning information, and in my opinion prosecutorial misjudgment (in a ton of ways). It's also no surprise both sides are cherry-picking parts of the report to support their base.

Put me in the camp of let's move on and use the ballot box as the test rather than impeachment proceedings (which I don't think would be successful given the constitutional requirements, and would only further tear the country apart).

If your credentials can compete, I'd welcome your analysis as well.

Quote
A graduate of Harvard Law School, Seth worked for nine years as a criminal defense attorney and criminal investigator and is now a tenure-track professor of Communication Arts and Sciences at University of New Hampshire. His teaching areas include digital journalism, post-internet cultural theory, post-internet writing, and legal advocacy (legal writing, case method, and trial advocacy). He is also Affiliate Faculty at the New Hampshire Institute of Art, a member of the New Hampshire High Tech Council, a columnist for Newsweek, and a New York Times best-selling author.

Trained as a criminal investigator at Georgetown University (1996) and Harvard University (2000-2001), Seth is now an attorney in good standing with both the New Hampshire Bar Association and the Federal Bar for the District of New Hampshire. He's worked for four public defenders— three state and one federal—representing over 2,000 criminal defendants over that time in cases ranging from juvenile delinquency to first-degree murder. He first testified in federal court as a defense investigator at the age of 19; represented his first homicide client at the age of 22 as a Rule 33 attorney for the Boston Trial Unit of the Committee for Public Counsel Services (CPCS); and had won two homicide cases, including a first-degree murder trial, by the age of 29. After working for CPCS on major felonies (called "non-concurrent felonies" in Massachusetts) in Boston Municipal Court and Dorchester District Court in 1999 and 2000, Seth represented misdemeanor clients in Roxbury District Court through the Harvard Criminal Justice Institute from 2000 to 2001. Between 2001 and 2007, he was a staff attorney for the Nashua Trial Unit of the New Hampshire Public Defender, working cases in seven district courts in southern New Hampshire as well as in both of the Superior Courts in Hillsborough County (the Southern District and Northern District).

A 1998 graduate of Dartmouth College (A.B.), Seth returned to school after his time at the New Hampshire Public Defender and received additional terminal degrees in both Creative Writing (MFA, The University of Iowa Writers' Workshop, 2009) and Literary Studies (PhD, University of Wisconsin-Madison, 2016). In 2015, he joined the undergraduate faculty at the urban college of University of New Hampshire, which specializes in interdisciplinary and professional studies.

If your rebuttal is simply "he's a total tinfoil hat loon" with no relevant corroboration, I trust you'll understand why I disregard your opinion.

gentmach

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 303
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #1844 on: April 19, 2019, 04:06:47 PM »

The Russia situation seems to never been a big problem for people, at least according to Gallup. (https://news.gallup.com/poll/1675/most-important-problem.aspx) it never got more than 1% on the list. The release of the Mueller report just tying up loose ends.

I'm not sure that poll supports your statement above - just because almost no one lists Russian interference as "the most important problem" doesn't mean that people don't find it to be a 'big' problem.
I'm certainly one who thinks Russian interference in our elections is a serious issue, but not the biggest one we face.

By your standards foreign trade, abortion, gun control, terrorism, social security and income inequality are also issues that aren't a big problem for people.

Is it the issue that would make or break you voting for someone? Also would you consider yourself to be an "average" American or something else?

https://twitter.com/SethAbramson/status/1109913558333210629

To save you a click:

***Seth Abramson Tweet Thread***

Just wanted to go back to someone citing Seth Abramson as a credible source; who yesterday did a FOUR HUNDRED AND FIFTY ONE WORD (451) tweet storm, that ended in him basically saying, "I'll get to the obstruction analysis tomorrow."

The guy is a total tinfoil hat loon (my recollection is that he also had similar diatribes as to why Bernie was going to win the 2016 primary), and yet he's somehow been deemed legitimate by the far, far left. He's seriously insane.

***

Reaction to the Mueller Report, overall, is that it's full of damning information, and in my opinion prosecutorial misjudgment (in a ton of ways). It's also no surprise both sides are cherry-picking parts of the report to support their base.

Put me in the camp of let's move on and use the ballot box as the test rather than impeachment proceedings (which I don't think would be successful given the constitutional requirements, and would only further tear the country apart).

If your credentials can compete, I'd welcome your analysis as well.

Quote
A graduate of Harvard Law School, Seth worked for nine years as a criminal defense attorney and criminal investigator and is now a tenure-track professor of Communication Arts and Sciences at University of New Hampshire. His teaching areas include digital journalism, post-internet cultural theory, post-internet writing, and legal advocacy (legal writing, case method, and trial advocacy). He is also Affiliate Faculty at the New Hampshire Institute of Art, a member of the New Hampshire High Tech Council, a columnist for Newsweek, and a New York Times best-selling author.

Trained as a criminal investigator at Georgetown University (1996) and Harvard University (2000-2001), Seth is now an attorney in good standing with both the New Hampshire Bar Association and the Federal Bar for the District of New Hampshire. He's worked for four public defenders— three state and one federal—representing over 2,000 criminal defendants over that time in cases ranging from juvenile delinquency to first-degree murder. He first testified in federal court as a defense investigator at the age of 19; represented his first homicide client at the age of 22 as a Rule 33 attorney for the Boston Trial Unit of the Committee for Public Counsel Services (CPCS); and had won two homicide cases, including a first-degree murder trial, by the age of 29. After working for CPCS on major felonies (called "non-concurrent felonies" in Massachusetts) in Boston Municipal Court and Dorchester District Court in 1999 and 2000, Seth represented misdemeanor clients in Roxbury District Court through the Harvard Criminal Justice Institute from 2000 to 2001. Between 2001 and 2007, he was a staff attorney for the Nashua Trial Unit of the New Hampshire Public Defender, working cases in seven district courts in southern New Hampshire as well as in both of the Superior Courts in Hillsborough County (the Southern District and Northern District).

A 1998 graduate of Dartmouth College (A.B.), Seth returned to school after his time at the New Hampshire Public Defender and received additional terminal degrees in both Creative Writing (MFA, The University of Iowa Writers' Workshop, 2009) and Literary Studies (PhD, University of Wisconsin-Madison, 2016). In 2015, he joined the undergraduate faculty at the urban college of University of New Hampshire, which specializes in interdisciplinary and professional studies.

If your rebuttal is simply "he's a total tinfoil hat loon" with no relevant corroboration, I trust you'll understand why I disregard your opinion.


Seth Abramson has a book called "Proof of Conspiracy" as well as a donatation page on his website. He has a monetary motivation to keep talking.

There are aslo questions about how valuable his analysis is.


https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2017/12/sharing-seth-abramson-not-once-not-ever.html

https://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/201704/stop-listening-to-seth-abramson-on-donald-trumps-r.html
https://thinkprogress.org/blue-detectives-collapse-trump-russia-a42a94537bdf/

ReadySetMillionaire

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 937
  • Location: The Buckeye State
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #1845 on: April 19, 2019, 07:53:13 PM »
https://twitter.com/SethAbramson/status/1109913558333210629

To save you a click:

***Seth Abramson Tweet Thread***

Just wanted to go back to someone citing Seth Abramson as a credible source; who yesterday did a FOUR HUNDRED AND FIFTY ONE WORD (451) tweet storm, that ended in him basically saying, "I'll get to the obstruction analysis tomorrow."

The guy is a total tinfoil hat loon (my recollection is that he also had similar diatribes as to why Bernie was going to win the 2016 primary), and yet he's somehow been deemed legitimate by the far, far left. He's seriously insane.

***

Reaction to the Mueller Report, overall, is that it's full of damning information, and in my opinion prosecutorial misjudgment (in a ton of ways). It's also no surprise both sides are cherry-picking parts of the report to support their base.

Put me in the camp of let's move on and use the ballot box as the test rather than impeachment proceedings (which I don't think would be successful given the constitutional requirements, and would only further tear the country apart).

If your credentials can compete, I'd welcome your analysis as well.

Quote
A graduate of Harvard Law School, Seth worked for nine years as a criminal defense attorney and criminal investigator and is now a tenure-track professor of Communication Arts and Sciences at University of New Hampshire. His teaching areas include digital journalism, post-internet cultural theory, post-internet writing, and legal advocacy (legal writing, case method, and trial advocacy). He is also Affiliate Faculty at the New Hampshire Institute of Art, a member of the New Hampshire High Tech Council, a columnist for Newsweek, and a New York Times best-selling author.

Trained as a criminal investigator at Georgetown University (1996) and Harvard University (2000-2001), Seth is now an attorney in good standing with both the New Hampshire Bar Association and the Federal Bar for the District of New Hampshire. He's worked for four public defenders— three state and one federal—representing over 2,000 criminal defendants over that time in cases ranging from juvenile delinquency to first-degree murder. He first testified in federal court as a defense investigator at the age of 19; represented his first homicide client at the age of 22 as a Rule 33 attorney for the Boston Trial Unit of the Committee for Public Counsel Services (CPCS); and had won two homicide cases, including a first-degree murder trial, by the age of 29. After working for CPCS on major felonies (called "non-concurrent felonies" in Massachusetts) in Boston Municipal Court and Dorchester District Court in 1999 and 2000, Seth represented misdemeanor clients in Roxbury District Court through the Harvard Criminal Justice Institute from 2000 to 2001. Between 2001 and 2007, he was a staff attorney for the Nashua Trial Unit of the New Hampshire Public Defender, working cases in seven district courts in southern New Hampshire as well as in both of the Superior Courts in Hillsborough County (the Southern District and Northern District).

A 1998 graduate of Dartmouth College (A.B.), Seth returned to school after his time at the New Hampshire Public Defender and received additional terminal degrees in both Creative Writing (MFA, The University of Iowa Writers' Workshop, 2009) and Literary Studies (PhD, University of Wisconsin-Madison, 2016). In 2015, he joined the undergraduate faculty at the urban college of University of New Hampshire, which specializes in interdisciplinary and professional studies.

If your rebuttal is simply "he's a total tinfoil hat loon" with no relevant corroboration, I trust you'll understand why I disregard your opinion.

My opinion is based on Chris Hayes (the MSNBC host and one of my favorite Twitter follows), and most NYT and WaPo writers, who also think he fell of a cliff a long time ago, and is clearly using Twitter hysteria to sell his book. Even Maddow and Hayes and O’Donnell don’t have him on their show — he is way left of them and he’s not credible.

He basically rode Twitter to extreme popularity by profiting off the Resistance folks’ collective hysteria. Then turned that into a book. Most of his reporting is absolute trash.

I specifically remember that Slate article from 2017 posted by gentmach. Slate — Slate! — concluded his analysis was garbage.

Also, his biggest theories (the Mayflower Hotel and RNC platform change in Ukraine) were two of the *very* few things the Mueller Report squarely repudiated. 

He is just shy of being the left’s version of Alex Jones.

rocketpj

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 699
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #1846 on: April 20, 2019, 09:59:09 AM »

Taking the assumption that in lieu of being president there would be enough to indict, this raises the interesting question of what happens to DJT on January 21, 2021 (or 2025, god forbid). Will we see a bunch of pardons fly out the window on the morning of Jan 20? I don't see a path in which this does not get a lot uglier, either through erosion of law or just ugly politics, unless Mitch decides it is more politically expedient to turn on Caesar.

No way will Trump accept an electoral loss.  He will deny the vote, claim cheating, and refuse to step down.  Of course, vote suppression and actual cheating are going to be factors as well, particularly in the states where the Republicans have control of the voting systems.

In the last election he refused to state whether he would respect the vote.  No way will he quietly step down and into an indictment.  He will cling to power unless he is bodily removed from the office.  And he will whip up his alt right base to fight for him too.

I am going nowhere near the US until he is out of office.  Shit could get very dangerous, very quickly. 

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3823
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #1847 on: April 20, 2019, 10:12:34 AM »

Taking the assumption that in lieu of being president there would be enough to indict, this raises the interesting question of what happens to DJT on January 21, 2021 (or 2025, god forbid). Will we see a bunch of pardons fly out the window on the morning of Jan 20? I don't see a path in which this does not get a lot uglier, either through erosion of law or just ugly politics, unless Mitch decides it is more politically expedient to turn on Caesar.

No way will Trump accept an electoral loss.  He will deny the vote, claim cheating, and refuse to step down.  Of course, vote suppression and actual cheating are going to be factors as well, particularly in the states where the Republicans have control of the voting systems.

In the last election he refused to state whether he would respect the vote.  No way will he quietly step down and into an indictment.  He will cling to power unless he is bodily removed from the office.  And he will whip up his alt right base to fight for him too.

I am going nowhere near the US until he is out of office.  Shit could get very dangerous, very quickly.

He was floating inciting violence if Hillary won the election in 2016. I see no reason he wouldn’t do the same in 2020. In fact, I expect it.


sherr

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 618
  • Age: 33
  • Location: North Carolina
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #1848 on: April 20, 2019, 11:04:57 AM »
No way will Trump accept an electoral loss.  He will deny the vote, claim cheating, and refuse to step down.  Of course, vote suppression and actual cheating are going to be factors as well, particularly in the states where the Republicans have control of the voting systems.

In the last election he refused to state whether he would respect the vote.  No way will he quietly step down and into an indictment.  He will cling to power unless he is bodily removed from the office.  And he will whip up his alt right base to fight for him too.

You should always take this claim with a large grain of salt. People always say this about the other side's president. In 2016 mother-in-law was claiming Obama was going to somehow subvert the constitution and install himself as king.

However, given this time we're talking about Trump, I'm pretty worried about this possibility too.

bacchi

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3508
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #1849 on: April 20, 2019, 01:07:28 PM »
No way will Trump accept an electoral loss.  He will deny the vote, claim cheating, and refuse to step down.  Of course, vote suppression and actual cheating are going to be factors as well, particularly in the states where the Republicans have control of the voting systems.

In the last election he refused to state whether he would respect the vote.  No way will he quietly step down and into an indictment.  He will cling to power unless he is bodily removed from the office.  And he will whip up his alt right base to fight for him too.

You should always take this claim with a large grain of salt. People always say this about the other side's president. In 2016 mother-in-law was claiming Obama was going to somehow subvert the constitution and install himself as king.

However, given this time we're talking about Trump, I'm pretty worried about this possibility too.

It was said about Bush too.

However, neither Bush nor Obama were warning their supporters ahead of the election that there was a good chance that the election would be stolen. Neither Bush nor Obama declared after the election that there was massive voter fraud.