Author Topic: United States of Russia?  (Read 254808 times)

gentmach

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 297
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: 1158
  • 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: 297
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: 8200
  • 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: 4004
  • 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: 2833
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: 3497
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: 8200
  • 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: 855
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: 5313
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: 2081
  • 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: 453
  • 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: 3497
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: 297
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: 8200
  • 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: 5313
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: 2081
  • 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: 453
  • 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.