Mueller Report Imminent

[1972 Grad]

Can't be true. Obama smugly said "not a smidgen of corruption in my administration."

 

[Vol737]

View attachment 203742

Biden was my roommate at Hair Club for Men.

 

[Orange_Crush]

 

[AM64]

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).

Who knows, could have been guy talk about Kennedy's girls. My dad actually flew with Butterfield and always considered him a slime ball ... and my dad rarely said anything bad about anybody.

 

[AM64]

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.

I always considered Nixon one of the best presidents. He put up with a lot from the press and virtually anyone who ever called himself or herself a Dim, but he was heads and shoulders above LBJ and Kennedy, and as you say everybody since. Kennedy is remembered a lot more favorably than he should have been.

 

[1972 Grad]

I always considered Nixon one of the best presidents. He put up with a lot from the press and virtually anyone who ever called himself or herself a Dim, but he was heads and shoulders above LBJ and Kennedy, and as you say everybody since. Kennedy is remembered a lot more favorably than he should have been.

Kennedy was not a lock to get re-elected a year out from Nov. 1964.

 

[AM64]

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.

I haven't read that one ... I'll look it up. From pretty much every honest book I've read, Nixon certainly turned LBJ's mess around. No More Vietnams by Nixon is a pretty blunt assessment of LBJ's (and Kennedy's) failures with regard to Vietnam, and he doesn't trash LBJ, but he does a great job of exposing why and how LBJ and crew screwed up from start to finish ... simple poor analysis and judgement. You pretty much get the same analysis from any honest history ... LBJ wanted to fight on the cheap to avoid losing because he wanted his great society.

 

[IPleadInsanity]

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.

Double standard for the Dems as usual , Ok to have 24 hour coverage of Trumps hair early in the race only to be wrong about it, but it's silly then to discuss Biden's obvious hair flaw. I also want to see his birth certificate, not a request since its required to run. He seems like he is from LA LA land, do they issue passports? Then you get to the age factor, the guy is like 106 years old, and he is not the oldest Dim candidate!!!

 

[AM64]

Double standard for the Dems as usual , Ok to have 24 hour coverage of Trumps hair early in the race only to be wrong about it, but it's silly then to discuss Biden's obvious hair flaw. I also want to see his birth certificate, not a request since its required to run. He seems like he is from LA LA land, do they issue passports? Then you get to the age factor, the guy is like 106 years old, and he is not the oldest Dim candidate!!!

I watched coverage of Biden the other day; he looked completely befuddled ... a lot of stammering with basically no wit whatsoever. Definitely a "has been" look about him.

 

[IPleadInsanity]

I watched coverage of Biden the other day; he looked completely befuddled ... a lot of stammering with basically no wit whatsoever. Definitely a "has been" look about him.

This new method, shown to us by the Dims, is fantastic. Just say anything you want about a candidate and keep saying it until some part of it sticks. Hell, you don't even need to keep up with current events just keep slamming them. Leave logic and reasoning at the door.

 

[RDU VOL#14]

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

 

[RockyTop85]

You could never prove it didn’t happen

That’s not true. They basically proved several instances where the campaign refused Russian inroads. If they’d all been that simple, Mueller could have (and says he would have) concluded that there was absolutely zero collusion.

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.

That’s a total mischaracterization of what I said. Y’all are so edgy and defensive about being called out on your misrepresentations of fact. I’m sure I know why.

You all had a week long victory lap before this report came out. You thought it was going to be better for Trump than it is and you rubbed everybody else’s noses in it. Now that it’s out and it isn’t what you thought it was going to be, you realize you’re the showboating wide receiver who dropped the ball before you got to the end zone and none of you has fortitude to accept it. You have to keep gaslighting and pretending it’s total exoneration because you’re afraid that if you acknowledge the truth for fear the libs here will behave the way you did.

I can understand, with the way our media is, how much of a red hat echo chamber this is, and the way the release was handled, that many might still be in the dark, but the defensiveness and need to turn the tables on anyone who points you back in the direction of reality is a pretty clear indication that some of you know what it says and are just unwilling to acknowledge it.

Rest assured, I don’t have any interest in shaming you for taking your victory lap. If anybody’s real life leaves them feeling like they need to win at something so badly that they declare themselves victorious on an anonymous message board, I sincerely hope it helps and that things get better. And if you were just being an ass hole, I wouldn’t have any room to criticize you for that either.

All I’m here for is an honest and open discussion, because it seems like there was one thing Barr said that was true: this is unprecedented.

 

[NurseGoodVol]

Why not? She IS untouchable.

I'm surprised they let her walk, being anticoagulated, one more good fall, boom... Subdural hematoma. She is physically her own worst enemy right now, she probably should have actually taken a yoga class.

 

[NurseGoodVol]

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?

Nope and that's why i don't comment on it.

 

[NorthDallas40]

That’s not true. They basically proved several instances where the campaign refused Russian inroads. If they’d all been that simple, Mueller could have (and says he would have) concluded that there was absolutely zero collusion.



That’s a total mischaracterization of what I said. Y’all are so edgy and defensive about being called out on your misrepresentations of fact. I’m sure I know why.

You all had a week long victory lap before this report came out. You thought it was going to be better for Trump than it is and you rubbed everybody else’s noses in it. Now that it’s out and it isn’t what you thought it was going to be, you realize you’re the showboating wide receiver who dropped the ball before you got to the end zone and none of you has fortitude to accept it. You have to keep gaslighting and pretending it’s total exoneration because you’re afraid that if you acknowledge the truth for fear the libs here will behave the way you did.

I can understand, with the way our media is, how much of a red hat echo chamber this is, and the way the release was handled, that many might still be in the dark, but the defensiveness and need to turn the tables on anyone who points you back in the direction of reality is a pretty clear indication that some of you know what it says and are just unwilling to acknowledge it.

Rest assured, I don’t have any interest in shaming you for taking your victory lap. If anybody’s real life leaves them feeling like they need to win at something so badly that they declare themselves victorious on an anonymous message board, I sincerely hope it helps and that things get better. And if you were just being an ass hole, I wouldn’t have any room to criticize you for that either.

All I’m here for is an honest and open discussion, because it seems like there was one thing Barr said that was true: this is unprecedented.

Not really Rocky. The prosecutors found no cause for indictment. That should be the end of it. However it keeps coming up and the left won’t drop it. From a legal consequence no indictments = no collusion. Move on. This isn’t “me being edgy”. And what’s with the need for all the self righteous shade here? Why are you pulling that now?

 

[RockyTop85]

Good post. Except it's even narrower than that. They determined that with the admissibleevidence 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.

I didn’t notice whether they discussed inadmissible evidence in the report, but it seems like they weren’t shy about sharing potential hearsay. Don’t know about 4th amendment stuff. I would assume what was in the report was what they had, unless it’s been explicitly stated otherwise and I missed it. I suppose there may be admissibility questions concerning Cohen’s evidence and I don’t recall there being a ton of references to him, but A-C privilege doesn’t usually apply if the attorney is a party to a crime. I’d have to do some digging to figure out what has to be done to bypass that.

To me, the only compelling evidence in Volume I that wasn’t explained was that Manafort is someone that the Russians have apparently used in the past, Kislyak, IIRC, was fired from a previous job for suspected ties to Russian intelligence, although I may be confusing that with someone else, and Manafort was giving him internal polling data while the Russians were running these cyber operations. There was no proof it went beyond Manafort (but his text messages were deleted as were, I think, Bannon’s)*. Kislyak did not cooperate with the special counsel’s investigation.

That is the only memorable portion of Volume I that I feel merits articulating a distinction between “no proof of collusion” and “proof of no collusion.”

I’ve spoken with other attorneys who are of the opinion that the distinction is significant to the case of obstruction, but I don’t think it is.

Their logic is that if you manage to obstruct the investigation to such a degree that it can’t be proven then you shouldn’t be off the hook for obstruction.

I agree in principle, but don’t think there’s any evidence that this type of obstruction occurred, successfully. There are other reasons why the “no collusion = no obstruction” argument doesn’t hold water.

*- I inferred from the report that the messages appeared to have been scrubbed up to March 2017, which is when it became clear that the investigation was targeting the campaign. I did not find the wording to be completely clear that that was in fact the earliest date that messages were able to be obtained. Bannon and Manafort said they had no idea why their texts from before March 2017 had disappeared.

 

[Jxn Vol]

Not really Rocky. The prosecutors found no cause for indictment. That should be the end of it. However it keeps coming up and the left won’t drop it. From a legal consequence no indictments = no collusion. Move on. This isn’t “me being edgy”. And what’s with the need for all the self righteous shade here? Why are you pulling that now?

The self righteous shade is one of the stages of grief that they must go through. It may be short or it could take a while. Hopefully he has a sponsor that will help him through the process.

 

[ajvol01]

The IG report concluded that agent bias did not taint the investigation.

 

[LouderVol]

I've never figured out the supposed Obama administration plot.

(1) Illegally spy on the Trump campaign.
(2) ???
(3) Steal the election for Hillary Clinton.

What is step 2, and why didn't the Obama administration do it?

There was the whole part where they had to approve the Russian lawyers for the Trump Tower meeting.

The part where they lied about the Russians, and any ability for the election to be influenced to discredit Trump.

The illegal spying is also just part of what they did against Trump. They also had an investigation going. Which started with something that doesnt pass the smell test.

No way to claim the WH was treating both sides the same

 

[82_VOL_83]

I haven't read that one ... I'll look it up. From pretty much every honest book I've read, Nixon certainly turned LBJ's mess around. No More Vietnams by Nixon is a pretty blunt assessment of LBJ's (and Kennedy's) failures with regard to Vietnam, and he doesn't trash LBJ, but he does a great job of exposing why and how LBJ and crew screwed up from start to finish ... simple poor analysis and judgement. You pretty much get the same analysis from any honest history ... LBJ wanted to fight on the cheap to avoid losing because he wanted his great society.

I read more of the shorter books about both WWII and Vietnam written from a 1st person perspective. Not much on the longer "text book" style reads. Plus it was free on Kindle Unlimited.

 

[RockyTop85]

Not really Rocky. The prosecutors found no cause for indictment. That should be the end of it. However it keeps coming up and the left won’t drop it. From a legal consequence no indictments = no collusion. Move on. This isn’t “me being edgy”. And what’s with the need for all the self righteous shade here? Why are you pulling that now?

Ok, I get it, you think collusion is off the table. I’m not sure how much more clearly I can state that I agree that it cannot be proven and that, based on the evidence, it would have been unjust to charge a related crime. I would have made the same decision. In almost all instances, there was actually evidence that there was no collusion/conspiracy.

You can have those opinions, as I obviously do, without being misleading about what the report actually says. They’re not mutually exclusive. So Literally, the only thing you could possibly be arguing about at this point is that we should just not mention it at all.

Which would be ironic, because I don’t recall seeing anybody talking about it, before your post. So, I’m fairly sure you brought it up. You then mischaracterized my post, so that you could make some belittling comments (maybe we’re pretending that didn’t happen) and continue to argue, against literally nobody at that point, that collusion never occurred. Now, you’ve devolved to playing the victim and, basically, “that is too what you said” to, again, redirect the conversation back to the collusion that you don’t anybody want to talk about.

So the answer to your question is that you earned it. But I think the appropriate response is “if you can’t take it, don’t dish it out,” that seems like it’s probably appropriate on multiple levels.

 

[NorthDallas40]

Ok, I get it, you think collusion is off the table. I’m not sure how much more clearly I can state that I agree that it cannot be proven and that, based on the evidence, it would have been unjust to charge a related crime. I would have made the same decision. In almost all instances, there was actually evidence that there was no collusion/conspiracy.

You can have those opinions, as I obviously do, without being misleading about what the report actually says. They’re not mutually exclusive. So Literally, the only thing you could possibly be arguing about at this point is that we should just not mention it at all.

Which would be ironic, because I don’t recall seeing anybody talking about it, before your post. So, I’m fairly sure you brought it up. You then mischaracterized my post, so that you could make some belittling comments (maybe we’re pretending that didn’t happen) and continue to argue, against literally nobody at that point, that collusion never occurred. Now, you’ve devolved to playing the victim and, basically, “that is too what you said” to, again, redirect the conversation back to the collusion that you don’t anybody want to talk about.

So the answer to your question is that you earned it. But I think the appropriate response is “if you can’t take it, don’t dish it out,” that seems like it’s probably appropriate on multiple levels.

Your dialog thus far on this latest discussion at least read to me as the “just because they can’t prove collusion doesn’t mean it didn’t occur” which is nothing more than dragging on a beaten to death dead horse and you’re just splitting hairs and parsing to keep the narrative in the mainstream discussion. The “you’re” here is the collective anti Trump group not you exactly, just pointing out you’re on that bandwagon in this discussion. In my discussion st least with you I don’t remember going belong the collusion narrative which is the only point i thought I brought up with you? The only thought I have on obstruction is Mueller abdicated his responsibility. Plain and simple. And there have been indications Barr was pissed about that. It’s time to move on.

And “I earned it” in my discussions with you? Ok fair enough. As we’ve talked before I try to respond to you at least in kind. I thought we had been civil. Don’t worry I can take it I’m good. If you really want to take our exchanges to the next level I’m down with it.

 

[AM64]

I read more of the shorter books about both WWII and Vietnam written from a 1st person perspective. Not much on the longer "text book" style reads. Plus it was free on Kindle Unlimited.

Several of the books written by FACs and A-1 pilots - particularly the guys who flew over Laos - really demonstrate where we missed the boat. Of course, since LBJ let North Vietnam import Russian antiaircraft guns and missiles at will, it made life risky for them. Not sealing North Vietnamese ports and rail lines was probably the stupidest of many dumb decisions LBJ made.

 

[RockyTop85]

Your dialog thus far on this latest discussion at least read to me as the “just because they can’t prove collusion doesn’t mean it didn’t occur” which is nothing more than dragging on a beaten to death dead horse and you’re just splitting hairs and parsing to keep the narrative in the mainstream discussion. The “you’re” here is the collective anti Trump group not you exactly, just pointing out you’re on that bandwagon in this discussion. In my discussion st least with you I don’t remember going belong the collusion narrative which is the only point i thought I brought up with you? The only thought I have on obstruction is Mueller abdicated his responsibility. Plain and simple. And there have been indications Barr was pissed about that. It’s time to move on.

And “I earned it” in my discussions with you? Ok fair enough. As we’ve talked before I try to respond to you at least in kind. I thought we had been civil. Don’t worry I can take it I’m good. If you really want to take our exchanges to the next level I’m down with it.

From the post you just quoted:

I’m not sure how much more clearly I can state that I agree that it cannot be proven and that, based on the evidence, it would have been unjust to charge a related crime. I would have made the same decision. In almost all instances, there was actually evidence that there was no collusion/conspiracy.

 

[AM64]

Your dialog thus far on this latest discussion at least read to me as the “just because they can’t prove collusion doesn’t mean it didn’t occur” which is nothing more than dragging on a beaten to death dead horse and you’re just splitting hairs and parsing to keep the narrative in the mainstream discussion. The “you’re” here is the collective anti Trump group not you exactly, just pointing out you’re on that bandwagon in this discussion. In my discussion st least with you I don’t remember going belong the collusion narrative which is the only point i thought I brought up with you? The only thought I have on obstruction is Mueller abdicated his responsibility. Plain and simple. And there have been indications Barr was pissed about that. It’s time to move on.

And “I earned it” in my discussions with you? Ok fair enough. As we’ve talked before I try to respond to you at least in kind. I thought we had been civil. Don’t worry I can take it I’m good. If you really want to take our exchanges to the next level I’m down with it.

I think it gets down to that not being able to prove a negative ... or a matter of degrees. While a quote from the FBI was sufficient for Dims to say that Hiliary was cleared of mishandling classified materials (because she didn't intend to), they refuse to accept that anything that Trump's team may have done was below any bar necessary to prosecute. In one case misdeeds are allowable; in the other absolutely nothing is too insignificant to ignore and magnify with a Hubble sized telescope. I'm amazed they haven't called for the thought police to divine evil thoughts by the Trump team.