|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 4, 2019 8:24:38 GMT -5
Oranges & Windmill Cancer.
and yet, Senate still voted lock-step for Nuclear Option - the better to install his unqualified pics.
sigh. I said 2 years ago,and I say again, History will not be kind to the GOP (in particular the enablers McConnell & Ryan, whom abdicated their Constitutional duties)
|
|
|
|
Post by Prince Hal on Apr 4, 2019 9:17:20 GMT -5
Oranges & Windmill Cancer. and yet, Senate still voted lock-step for Nuclear Option - the better to install his unqualified pics. sigh. I said 2 years ago,and I say again, History will not be kind to the GOP (in particular the enablers McConnell & Ryan, whom abdicated their Constitutional duties) Assuming there will be any history in a few years... |
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on Apr 4, 2019 9:21:17 GMT -5
As bad as The Charlatan-in-Chief is...Mitch McConnell will go down as one of the most damaging figures in American history.
|
|
|
|
Post by impulse on Apr 4, 2019 12:05:33 GMT -5
As bad as The Charlatan-in-Chief is...Mitch McConnell will go down as one of the most damaging figures in American history. On that note, The Vanisher (of evidence) Barr may join him. This seems to be big news if true. Limited information Barr has shared about Russia investigation frustrated some on Mueller’s teamI mean, this is not terribly surprising to anyone who has been paying attention. Holy CRAP, this is the real story. If true, this means Mueller's team literally already prepared summaries all but ready to go, and Barr still releases his summary-but-not-really-a-summary. Again, none of this is surprising to anyone who has been paying attention and is not in open denial, but this is the first hints I'm seeing of anyone coming close to right out saying it. Keep watching. It's going to get crazy before it get's REALLY crazy before it stops. |
|
|
|
Post by sunofdarkchild on Apr 4, 2019 16:17:06 GMT -5
With the insane conspiracy theories they’ve concocted over the last 2+ years See, here is the thing. Others have made points about the other things you talked about, so i will just focus on this. What do you mean by insane conspiracy theories? If you are suggesting that all of the accusations of working with Russians and various crimes are false, we know for a fact that is false on its face. There have been legit convictions and guilty pleas by people directly in Trump's campaign, administration, and businesses left and right. There is indisputable proof. They have the emails, the documents, in some cases confessions. Does it rise to the level for criminal indictment for proof beyond a reasonable doubt? Maybe not, but to suggest it is all baseless is just divorced from reality. How do you answer that? Do you not believe any of the crimes are real? Do you believe all of the indictments are fake? Do you think they planted evidence? Do you think it's lies? If you agree it's not fake, how do you reconcile still supporting this guy in light of how much mud he is involved in? I am not trying to be argumentative. I really want to understand because from the outside it is very difficult to reconcile how people are still supporting this guy in 2019 in light of what we know. Re: Barr's summary of the report, far better legal experts than us have basically said he lawyered the shit out of it to convey the message he wanted without technically anything untrue. I cannot trust any conclusions about the report until Congress gets a chance to see the actual report. None of the convictions of people associated with the Trump campaign have to do with conspiring with Russia in the 2016 election. The convictions are for unrelated matters or for lying to the FBI or Congress about things that were embarrassing but not illegal. Not one person has been convicted of conspiring with Russia. In many of the cases had these people simply told the truth about everything they would never have been charged or convicted because they did nothing illegal. Mueller has publicly denounced false representations of his report in the past. If he thought Barr's summary was not accurate he would not be quiet about it. Whatever you think of Mueller, he is not a Trump shrill and if he had found truly compelling evidence of collaboration between the Trump campaign and Russia to illegally affect the election we'd know it now. While much of the media swore that the collusion case was iron-clad, in the end the headlines were based on wishful thinking rather than the facts and the evidence. |
|
|
|
Post by Prince Hal on Apr 4, 2019 16:31:10 GMT -5
Keep generalizing about the media, sunofdarkchild. Keep assuming what is or isn't in the report. Oh, and where and when did Mueller ever speak or write about the report? Apparently you know him better than anyone to say that "he would not be quiet about it." |
|
|
|
Post by sunofdarkchild on Apr 4, 2019 16:57:36 GMT -5
www.politico.eu/article/robert-mueller-michael-cohen-donald-trump-team-disputes-aspects-of-buzzfeed-report-on-trump-cohen/There is an advantage to keeping an open mind about the whole presumption of innocence thing. The New York Times and Washington Post are citing anonymous 3rd-hand sources now, when Mueller's office has directly refuted lies about his report before. There have been a lot of anonymous sources saying there was bombshell evidence or a conviction for collusion was a shoe-in over the last 2 years, and they were all false. And this time even the anonymous sources saying that they are upset with Barr aren't mentioning collusion but only the obstruction issue, and even then more the way it was presented than the actual conclusion. Any report becomes much, much more credible when it comes directly from a named source. Maybe when the report is released in full it will look a whole lot worse than the initial summary, but Barr and Mueller are working together to determine how much can be legally released this month - there are parts that are illegal to release when no indictments are filed - and even Trump has called for its full release which suggests he isn't all that concerned about what is in it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Prince Hal on Apr 5, 2019 9:42:57 GMT -5
www.politico.eu/article/robert-mueller-michael-cohen-donald-trump-team-disputes-aspects-of-buzzfeed-report-on-trump-cohen/There is an advantage to keeping an open mind about the whole presumption of innocence thing. The New York Times and Washington Post are citing anonymous 3rd-hand sources now, when Mueller's office has directly refuted lies about his report before. There have been a lot of anonymous sources saying there was bombshell evidence or a conviction for collusion was a shoe-in over the last 2 years, and they were all false. And this time even the anonymous sources saying that they are upset with Barr aren't mentioning collusion but only the obstruction issue, and even then more the way it was presented than the actual conclusion. Any report becomes much, much more credible when it comes directly from a named source. Maybe when the report is released in full it will look a whole lot worse than the initial summary, but Barr and Mueller are working together to determine how much can be legally released this month - there are parts that are illegal to release when no indictments are filed - and even Trump has called for its full release which suggests he isn't all that concerned about what is in it. You're showing up at a gunfight with a knife. |
|
|
|
Post by impulse on Apr 5, 2019 9:43:03 GMT -5
None of the convictions of people associated with the Trump campaign have to do with conspiring with Russia in the 2016 election. The convictions are for unrelated matters or for lying to the FBI or Congress about things that were embarrassing but not illegal. Not one person has been convicted of conspiring with Russia. In many of the cases had these people simply told the truth about everything they would never have been charged or convicted because they did nothing illegal. Mueller has publicly denounced false representations of his report in the past. If he thought Barr's summary was not accurate he would not be quiet about it. Whatever you think of Mueller, he is not a Trump shrill and if he had found truly compelling evidence of collaboration between the Trump campaign and Russia to illegally affect the election we'd know it now. While much of the media swore that the collusion case was iron-clad, in the end the headlines were based on wishful thinking rather than the facts and the evidence. Now what on earth makes you think that is a reasonable conclusion to draw? Mueller and his team have said all but nothing for 2 years, and the one thing they did speak out about just said something was mischaracterized. You are making quite a leap assuming that. And we won't know anything unless and until the report is released and not redacted into nonsense. And innocent people totally lie to the FBI all the time and risk jail time. Everyone knows that, right? Keep generalizing about the media, sunofdarkchild . Keep assuming what is or isn't in the report. Oh, and where and when did Mueller ever speak or write about the report? Apparently you know him better than anyone to say that "he would not be quiet about it." Exactly. We cannot trust anything from the administration until the appropriate committees at Congress with proper clearance have the FULL REPORT. I said this when Mueller was appointed, and I will say it again. If Trump is cleared, fine. GREAT, actually! Just let Mueller do his thing, don't screw with it, and let it run its proper course*, and I will be satisfied that justice is done. They simply have not, cannot, and likely will not do so. They make it impossible to give them the benefit of the doubt and to trust the process when they mess with it at every step. For as much as these people claim to be innocent and exonerated, MAN, they sure act guilty as hell ALL THE TIME. ALLLLLL the time. *edited to add that letting it run its course means not burying it, either explicitly or effectively by redacting all meaning from it. I am not saying the public needs the full non-redacted report including all underlying evidence and classified materials, but the House committees with clearance sure as heck should have it. The party of law and order sure seems to oppose law and order. |
|
|
|
Post by Prince Hal on Apr 5, 2019 10:11:03 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by EdoBosnar on Apr 5, 2019 11:37:30 GMT -5
(...) Barr and Mueller are working together to determine how much can be legally released this month (...) Since you mentioned something about naming sources, can you cite the source for this claim? I've not seen or heard anywhere in any of the news sources I've consulted since the report was completed that Mueller or any member of his (former) team are involved in or are even being consulted on the redaction process.
And he walked that back almost immediately and now seems to be intent on blocking its release.
Otherwise, regardless of whether or not the report is released to the wider public, I think it should be released in its entirely (unredacted), with all relevant appendices and evidence attached, to the relevant congressional committees. There should be no need for the House to issue a subpoena to obtain it.
|
|
|
|
Post by impulse on Apr 5, 2019 13:51:30 GMT -5
Since you mentioned something about naming sources, can you cite the source for this claim? I've not seen or heard anywhere in any of the news sources I've consulted since the report was completed that Mueller or any member of his (former) team are involved in or are even being consulted on the redaction process. To be fair, I also feel like I read that Barr is consulting with Mueller on what needs to be redacted, but I'm not so foolish as to assume Barr will stop at just Mueller's suggestions and not redact more. That's another example of him lawyering it up by trying to suggest he is just following Mueller's advice, but upon closer examination he is saying nothing of the sort. Legalese and weasel language. And he walked that back almost immediately and now seems to be intent on blocking its release.
Otherwise, regardless of whether or not the report is released to the wider public, I think it should be released in its entirely (unredacted), with all relevant appendices and evidence attached, to the relevant congressional committees. There should be no need for the House to issue a subpoena to obtain it.
Could not possibly agree more. As much as I might be curious about what's in it, I do not need to know what is. The proper congressional committees absolutely do. |
|
|
|
Post by sunofdarkchild on Apr 6, 2019 12:37:14 GMT -5
Since you mentioned something about naming sources, can you cite the source for this claim? I've not seen or heard anywhere in any of the news sources I've consulted since the report was completed that Mueller or any member of his (former) team are involved in or are even being consulted on the redaction process. To be fair, I also feel like I read that Barr is consulting with Mueller on what needs to be redacted, but I'm not so foolish as to assume Barr will stop at just Mueller's suggestions and not redact more. That's another example of him lawyering it up by trying to suggest he is just following Mueller's advice, but upon closer examination he is saying nothing of the sort. Legalese and weasel language. And he walked that back almost immediately and now seems to be intent on blocking its release.
Otherwise, regardless of whether or not the report is released to the wider public, I think it should be released in its entirely (unredacted), with all relevant appendices and evidence attached, to the relevant congressional committees. There should be no need for the House to issue a subpoena to obtain it.
Could not possibly agree more. As much as I might be curious about what's in it, I do not need to know what is. The proper congressional committees absolutely do. Here's 1 link from a non-right-wing source. www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/politics/ct-attorney-general-defends-mueller-report-20190405-story.html "Barr said he was continuing to work with Mueller's office on redactions to the report so that it could be released to Congress and the public." And to everyone else: I'm the one jumping to conclusions? After 2 years with every indictment that has been issued fully out in the open and many of the facts of the case out in the open thanks to the incessant media coverage, we know for a fact that Mueller found there was no basis for any indictments on collusion and that he did not feel confident enough on the evidence for obstruction to issue an indictment, but there must be some hidden evidence for collusion that Barr is covering up? To believe that you have to believe that Mueller himself is deliberately covering it up at this point. If the people who were indicted for lying would done something else illegal, they would have been charged with that and the charges would have been more serious. If Michael Flynn's actions were illegal, that's what he would have been charged with and not just lying about them. If Michael Cohen had had illegal dealings with the Russians, he would have been charged with that as well as the unrelated fraud cases. The Russians who were indicted were charged with spreading fake propaganda on social media, not for anything to do with the Trump campaign. Could there be stuff that's embarrassing for Trump in the full report? Almost certainly. He's freaking Trump. But is there enough to show that Barr was totally wrong in his summary? Almost certainly not. |
|
|
|
Post by Prince Hal on Apr 6, 2019 14:52:07 GMT -5
To be fair, I also feel like I read that Barr is consulting with Mueller on what needs to be redacted, but I'm not so foolish as to assume Barr will stop at just Mueller's suggestions and not redact more. That's another example of him lawyering it up by trying to suggest he is just following Mueller's advice, but upon closer examination he is saying nothing of the sort. Legalese and weasel language. Could not possibly agree more. As much as I might be curious about what's in it, I do not need to know what is. The proper congressional committees absolutely do. We know for a fact that Mueller found there was no basis for any indictments on collusion and that he did not feel confident enough on the evidence for obstruction to issue an indictment... If the people who were indicted for lying would done something else illegal, they would have been charged with that and the charges would have been more serious. If Michael Flynn's actions were illegal, that's what he would have been charged with and not just lying about them. If Michael Cohen had had illegal dealings with the Russians, he would have been charged with that as well as the unrelated fraud cases. The Russians who were indicted were charged with spreading fake propaganda on social media, not for anything to do with the Trump campaign. But is there enough to show that Barr was totally wrong in his summary? Almost certainly not. Apparently you are one of the few people in America to have read the report, thus I believe you completely. |
|
|
|
Post by impulse on Apr 7, 2019 19:25:33 GMT -5
I have two thoughts on this part.
1. "Working with Mueller's office" does not mean "doing only the redactions Mueller's office suggests and nothing more." Conflate the two at your folly, which is probably his intention with his weasel lawyer language. 2. There is absolutely no reason the report needs to be redacted to the various Congressional committees with proper clearances whose job includes oversight. Yes, even the grand jury info. Barr could easily ask the judge to unseal it for the committees. There is precedent and obvious reason they would need it. So why haven't/won't they? I am not jumping to conclusions at all. I want everyone to be able to read the damn thing and be able to draw their own conclusions instead of taking Barr at his word.
"Many" of the facts is almost certainly nowhere close to covering the scope of the 2 year, 400 page report especially since Mueller's team was notoriously tight-lipped.
"No basis" is nowhere close to the same thing as "not enough to rise to the standard for criminal indictment." You are also making major assumptions suggesting the reason Mueller did not indict is because he thought he lacked the evidence. Many legal minds have been debating for months on whether the Justice Department could indict the president. It seems as likely as not that Mueller would not have found it within his authority to charge the president, and presented the evidence for review.
If only there was some way we could see Mueller's actual evidence and conclusions on the whole thing. Some way. If only he had written it down somewhere in detail where it could be thorough reviewed and vetted.
And now we have stepped firmly in the realm of pure fantasy and speculation. Investigations of this scope and scale are not so linear as just dropping all your cards and charging everyone for everything right away at the right time. We don't know to what degree people cooperated, cut deals, had stuff sent to other jurisdictions, who is still giving evidence, etc. Until the actual report is in for review without being redacted to hell, this is all pure speculation.
Look, I would LOVE to have my biggest concerns be proven wrong. I would love if the president is just a blowhard narcissistic idiot who lives with his foot in his mouth and is not up to his eyeballs in corruption. This all has been very unsettling. The fact they had a highly credible investigator assemble a crack team and do a thorough investigation and they are still mucking about with it is also really unsettling.
I suppose we will see if they release an actual properly redacted report that conveys the essence while protecting intel sources and such or 400 pages of black ink with the words "Trump...not...guilty" left intact. Nothing about the way this has been handled makes me optimistic for the former, not the least of which is Barr's history, stated beliefs, and actions to date.
|
|
