Mueller Report Imminent

[Tennesseefan2019]

You got held back 4 years in a row? Man that’s rough.

Two different teachers

 

[volfanhill]

Two different teachers

Find a sense of humor.

 

[RockyTop85]

And Mueller’s report clearly stated on page 5 and 173 that there was absolutely zero coordination between the Trump campaign and Russia yet you lib idiots keep up that crap.

What the report says is that they did not establish that there was coordination, not that they established that there was absolutely zero coordination. Some sections do contain evidence of instances when members of the campaign turned away certain Russian efforts to assist the campaign. Other sections, like the sections on Manafort and Kislyak and the Trump Tower meeting, contain circumstantial evidence that not everyone on the campaign was so clean. Those individuals gave explanations that could not be refuted by the available evidence. It was the right prosecutorial decision, I’m not arguing that it wasn’t, but what you’re saying mischaracterizes the findings and makes it seem like what they found proves innocence, when it simply fails to prove guilt.

If you take a child rape case with, for example, a 24 hour delayed reporting. The rape kit may not find any signs of trauma or DNA. The SANE nurse always testifies that this is not evidence that a rape did not occur. According to them, a perfectly fine child in a rape examination is not evidence that there was no rape, because kids are resilient and evidence disappears quickly. It’s not evidence of a rape, but it’s not an exoneration, either.

I will say that there’s nothing in Volume I that ties Trump to anything dastardly so maybe your characterization is more or less accurate with respect to him. Manafort and Trump Jr. probably came the closest and, IMO, Kushner’s texts make it very difficult to believe that the Trump Tower meeting was successful in obtaining anything, but there was evidence that they were told by Manafort (IIRC) that they might be meeting with a Russian agent, and went to get dirt on Hillary, anyways.

The Manafort/Kislyak stuff reads like a Tom Clancy novel. That dude is right where he belongs.

 

[BowlBrother85]

I'm always amazed at how so many people who weren't around let the press and Watergate (and likely college professors) completely define Nixon. He wasn't a particularly likable guy, but he inherited a big LBJ mess (particularly Viet Nam), changed policy to what it should have been, and forced the North Vietnamese to negotiate. Congress then cut funding for South Viet Nam causing the collapse after Nixon managed to barely stabilize things. Nixon got us out and a cowardly congress acted completely without honor ... typical of congress.

He defined (and sabotaged) himself with the Oval Office recordings and then by not destroying the tapes while he had the legal right to do so.

 

[37L1]

So does Obama need to be calling the shots or not for this parallel to work?

You asked if the spying was needed if Hillary was supposedly a lock. I countered with Watergate, which, according to your logic, didn't need to happen because Nixon was a lock, and in reality he was, a landslide of record proportions, lock. So much for your argument on that point. Being a lock doesn't necessarily stop bad behavior. You are now trying to change to another tangential subject on your ever spinning wheel of stupid argumentation.

Like I said, crooks gon' crook. Being a likely big winner doesn't mean squat to how a crooked politician operates.

 

[NorthDallas40]

What the report says is that they did not establish that there was coordination, not that they established that there was absolutely zero coordination. Some sections do contain evidence of instances when members of the campaign turned away certain Russian efforts to assist the campaign. Other sections, like the sections on Manafort and Kislyak and the Trump Tower meeting, contain circumstantial evidence that not everyone on the campaign was so clean. Those individuals gave explanations that could not be refuted by the available evidence. It was the right prosecutorial decision, I’m not arguing that it wasn’t, but what you’re saying mischaracterizes the findings and makes it seem like what they found proves innocence, when it simply fails to prove guilt.

If you take a child rape case with, for example, a 24 hour delayed reporting. The rape kit may not find any signs of trauma or DNA. The SANE nurse always testifies that this is not evidence that a rape did not occur. According to them, a perfectly fine child in a rape examination is not evidence that there was no rape, because kids are resilient and evidence disappears quickly. It’s not evidence of a rape, but it’s not an exoneration, either.

I will say that there’s nothing in Volume I that ties Trump to anything dastardly so maybe your characterization is more or less accurate with respect to him. Manafort and Trump Jr. probably came the closest and, IMO, Kushner’s texts make it very difficult to believe that the Trump Tower meeting was successful in obtaining anything, but there was evidence that they were told by Manafort (IIRC) that they might be meeting with a Russian agent, and went to get dirt on Hillary, anyways.

The Manafort/Kislyak stuff reads like a Tom Clancy novel. That dude is right where he belongs.

Oh c’mon Rocky ffs. They are prosecutors. They found no evidence to prosecute with regards to collusion. End of story.

I couldn’t care less on Manafort if he broke the law he broke the law. Funny that it wasn’t a big deal until Trump got to be POTUS though they had decided not to pursue it until then. Doesn’t mean he shouldn’t be held accountable though.

 

[AM64]

He defined (and sabotaged) himself with the Oval Office recordings and then by not destroying the tapes while he had the legal right to do so.

Nixon tried to cover for his guys whether he started the mess or not, and I've never been convinced he did. There's good and bad in that ... noble to take care of your own, but bad to cover for criminal stupidity especially when you know it's going to backfire. I guess Republicans just aren't as skilled at dirty tricks as Dims, and they sure don't have the press to cover for them.

 

[BowlBrother85]

Nixon tried to cover for his guys whether he started the mess or not, and I've never been convinced he did. There's good and bad in that ... noble to take care of your own, but bad to cover for criminal stupidity especially when you know it's going to backfire. I guess Republicans just aren't as skilled at dirty tricks as Dims, and they sure don't have the press to cover for them.

There is no covering for anything when you document it yourself on tape recordings... and then don't destroy those recordings while you have the chance. (though God only knows what was on those 18 minutes Rose Mary Woods erased).

 

[RavinDave]

Whats the dEal with his hair? When you see old videos of young Biden his hair is extremely thin, but thicker now.

SIAP... but this is why some call him Plugs...

 

[RockyTop85]

Oh c’mon Rocky ffs. They are prosecutors. They found no evidence to prosecute with regards to collusion. End of story.

I couldn’t care less on Manafort if he broke the law he broke the law. Funny that it wasn’t a big deal until Trump got to be POTUS though they had decided not to pursue it until then. Doesn’t mean he shouldn’t be held accountable though.

I said the ultimate decision - declining prosecution and concluding that conspiracy could not be proven - was the correct one, based on the evidence. Not that they needed my approval, but I would have made the same decision. I also gave a fairly objective review of what I thought was the worst evidence of conspiracy.

It seems 90% the human centipede on this forum didn’t bother to read the thing, so I don’t think it’s asking a lot for people who actually did to be precise when discussing its major conclusions.

The difference in “proved it didn’t happen” and “couldn’t prove it did happen” is significant, for a number of reasons.

So I’m not sure why you’re acting exasperated.

Also, I wasn’t talking about Manafort’s banking crimes, or whatever he got convicted of. I’m talking about his actions during the campaign, who Kislyak is and providing him polling data. Maybe he doesn’t need to be in jail, I thought his sentences were a bit harsh for nonviolent crimes, but he does not need to be anywhere close to any election campaign.

 

[volfanhill]

I said the ultimate decision - declining prosecution and concluding that conspiracy could not be proven - was the correct one, based on the evidence. Not that they needed my approval, but I would have made the same decision. I also gave a fairly objective review of what I thought was the worst evidence of conspiracy.

It seems 90% the human centipede on this forum didn’t bother to read the thing, so I don’t think it’s asking a lot for people who actually did to be precise when discussing its major conclusions.

The difference in “proved it didn’t happen” and “couldn’t prove it did happen” is significant, for a number of reasons.

So I’m not sure why you’re acting exasperated.

Also, I wasn’t talking about Manafort’s banking crimes, or whatever he got convicted of. I’m talking about his actions during the campaign, who Kislyak is and providing him polling data. Maybe he doesn’t need to be in jail, I thought his sentences were a bit harsh for nonviolent crimes, but he does not need to be anywhere close to any election campaign.

You could never prove it didn’t happen

 

[NorthDallas40]

I said the ultimate decision - declining prosecution and concluding that conspiracy could not be proven - was the correct one, based on the evidence. Not that they needed my approval, but I would have made the same decision. I also gave a fairly objective review of what I thought was the worst evidence of conspiracy.

It seems 90% the human centipede on this forum didn’t bother to read the thing, so I don’t think it’s asking a lot for people who actually did to be precise when discussing its major conclusions.

The difference in “proved it didn’t happen” and “couldn’t prove it did happen” is significant, for a number of reasons.

So I’m not sure why you’re acting exasperated.

Also, I wasn’t talking about Manafort’s banking crimes, or whatever he got convicted of. I’m talking about his actions during the campaign, who Kislyak is and providing him polling data. Maybe he doesn’t need to be in jail, I thought his sentences were a bit harsh for nonviolent crimes, but he does not need to be anywhere close to any election campaign.

Simple. To paraphrase, just because they couldn’t find evidence of collusion doesn’t mean collusion didn’t occur. You sound like LG or EL or Velo and that’s not a compliment. Instead of being glad that a special prosecutor didn’t find evidence of collusion we have have to play “yeah but...” instead of just moving on. It’s rather ridiculous.

 

[IPleadInsanity]

Simple. To paraphrase, just because they couldn’t find evidence of collusion doesn’t mean collusion didn’t occur. You sound like LG or EL or Velo and that’s not a compliment. Instead of being glad that a special prosecutor didn’t find evidence of collusion we have have to play “yeah but...” instead of just moving on. It’s rather ridiculous.

Correct, if you say he is guilty because they did not find enough evidence you can throw out literally every court case where a person is investigated and not charged, not to mention charged but not convicted. They always have some reason to investigate and these people are saying that in itself ought to be enough to convict. Not enough to charge but enough to convict? They need to live in a Communist country.

 

[Velo Vol]

What the report says is that they did not establish that there was coordination, not that they established that there was absolutely zero coordination. Some sections do contain evidence of instances when members of the campaign turned away certain Russian efforts to assist the campaign. Other sections, like the sections on Manafort and Kislyak and the Trump Tower meeting, contain circumstantial evidence that not everyone on the campaign was so clean. Those individuals gave explanations that could not be refuted by the available evidence. It was the right prosecutorial decision, I’m not arguing that it wasn’t, but what you’re saying mischaracterizes the findings and makes it seem like what they found proves innocence, when it simply fails to prove guilt.

Good post. Except it's even narrower than that. They determined that with the admissible evidence they might not be able to prove there was an agreement between the campaign and the Russians.

There may have been more evidence they couldn't use.

 

[NorthDallas40]

Correct, if you say he is guilty because they did not find enough evidence you can throw out literally every court case where a person is investigated and not charged, not to mention charged but not convicted. They always have some reason to investigate and these people are saying that in itself ought to be enough to convict. Not enough to charge but enough to convict? They need to live in a Communist country.

Good post. Except it's even narrower than that. They determined that with the admissible evidence they might not be able to prove there was an agreement between the campaign and the Russians.

There may have been more evidence they couldn't use.

Exhibit A on the continued never give up narrative.

 

[Tennesseefan2019]

SIAP... but this is why some call him Plugs...

 

[volfanhill]

View attachment 203742

Well that makes him unelectable

 

[BowlBrother85]

View attachment 203742

Would you feel better about him if he grew his hair a foot long in the back and combed it all straight forward? This is such an odd line of ridicule coming from a Trumpet.

 

[82_VOL_83]

Put that treasonous b**ch in prison.

 

[1972 Grad]

Were any of you guys who bash Nixon actually around and of age to rationally judge anyone when Nixon was president ... how about LBJ and Kennedy?

I was, and that is why I said Trump is the best President we have had since Nixon. Most of the bashers lap up revisionist history. I even voted for Nixon, and I also got to shake hands with him in 1968.

 

[82_VOL_83]

Were any of you guys who bash Nixon actually around and of age to rationally judge anyone when Nixon was president ... how about LBJ and Kennedy?

Not me. I was around but was more interested in camping, football, and the girlies.

 

[82_VOL_83]

Bill Clinton was an amateur adulterer when compared to John Kennedy

No kidding. Trump got nothing on JFK.

 

[82_VOL_83]

I'm always amazed at how so many people who weren't around let the press and Watergate (and likely college professors) completely define Nixon. He wasn't a particularly likable guy, but he inherited a big LBJ mess (particularly Viet Nam), changed policy to what it should have been, and forced the North Vietnamese to negotiate. Congress then cut funding for South Viet Nam causing the collapse after Nixon managed to barely stabilize things. Nixon got us out and a cowardly congress acted completely without honor ... typical of congress.

And it was winnable too. Read a book called Thud Driver. It's just one of many but describes the BS that went on to a T.

 

[Franklin Pierce]

New Revelation: The Corruption Is Leading Right Back To The ‘Scandal-Free’ Obama White House

The Hill’s John Solomon has uncovered new information which provides one more indication that much of the conspiracy to take down President Trump originated from the Obama White House.

Solomon reported that, in January 2016, the White House summoned Ukrainian authorities to Washington under the pretense of coordinating their nation’s ongoing anti-corruption efforts. (At this time, DNC consultant Ukrainian-American Alexandria Chalupa was warning Democrats that Trump was likely to tap Paul Manafort to run his campaign. I wrote about this here and here.)

Solomon wrote:

​

The January 2016 gathering, confirmed by multiple participants and contemporaneous memos, brought some of Ukraine’s top corruption prosecutors and investigators face to face with members of former President Obama’s National Security Council (NSC), FBI, State Department and Department of Justice (DOJ).

The agenda suggested the purpose was training and coordination. But Ukrainian participants said it didn’t take long — during the meetings and afterward — to realize the Americans’ objectives included two politically hot investigations: one that touched Vice President Joe Biden’s family and one that involved a lobbying firm linked closely to then-candidate Trump.​

Solomon spoke to a former Ukrainian Embassy officer, Andrii Telizhenko, who said, “U.S. officials kept talking about how important it was that all of our anti-corruption efforts be united.”

The Americans told Telizhenko they were interested in reopening an investigation about improper payments to GOP lobbyist Paul Manafort from Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych who belonged to Ukraine’s Russia-backed Party of Regions. The FBI had closed this case in 2014. (Manafort’s firm had long been connected to Roger Stone.)

Telizhenko and other attendees “recalled DOJ officials asking investigators from Ukraine’s National Anti-Corruption Bureau (NABU) if they could help locate new evidence about the Party of Regions’ payments and its dealings with Americans.” Telizhenko told Solomon. “It was definitely the case that led to the charges against Manafort and the leak to U.S. media during the 2016 election.”


Solomon points out:

​

That makes the January 2016 meeting one of the earliest documented efforts to build the now-debunked Trump-Russia collusion narrative and one of the first to involve the Obama administration’s intervention.​

New Revelation: The Corruption Is Leading Right Back To The 'Scandal-Free' Obama White House

 

[82_VOL_83]

Good post. Except it's even narrower than that. They determined that with the admissible evidence they might not be able to prove there was an agreement between the campaign and the Russians.

There MAY have been more evidence they couldn't use.

Helped your post...