Read and React Request for those still Believing Russiagate

[LouderVol]

here is a general opposition post responding directly to some of Taibbi's points. I wasn't familiar with Matt Taibbi before so I was looking into him. Seems like he is pretty much anti-Trump on everything but the Russian aspect.

the article only touches one aspect of what Taibbi brings up, the Steele report, while ignoring the rest. worth a read if you want a second opinion on the matter. Bloomberg - Are you a robot?

but the article does agree that the media screwed the pooch on this.

A very well done response to the article posted by OP.

Bloomberg - Are you a robot?

The gist:

beat you to it LG.

that well done article only address one point.

 

[lawgator1]

beat you to it LG.

that well done article only address one point.

The larger point is this: Our sole source of knowledge right now of Mueller's 400 page report is a 4 page "summary" (then backed off to not be a summary) by a political appointee on record over a year ago defending Trump on obstruction.

Declaring "victory" or calling for everyone to just accept that seems to be exactly the strategy being employed by Trump and Barr. Of course Trump and his people WANT us to just accept Barr's characterization of the report. And it does not help when Barr starts to duck and weave on what he is going to eventually release; nor does it help when we start to hear rumblings from those who participated that Barr's characterizations seem all too friendly to Trump.

Release the report.

 

[McDad]

The larger point is this: Our sole source of knowledge right now of Mueller's 400 page report is a 4 page "summary" (then backed off to not be a summary) by a political appointee on record over a year ago defending Trump on obstruction.

Declaring "victory" or calling for everyone to just accept that seems to be exactly the strategy being employed by Trump and Barr. Of course Trump and his people WANT us to just accept Barr's characterization of the report. And it does not help when Barr starts to duck and weave on what he is going to eventually release; nor does it help when we start to hear rumblings from those who participated that Barr's characterizations seem all too friendly to Trump.

Release the talking points and opines from the report so I can quote them.

FYP.

 

[luthervol]

This you?
View attachment 200548

Nope. I think his name is National Pride.

 

[BigOrangeD]

The larger point is this: Our sole source of knowledge right now of Mueller's 400 page report is a 4 page "summary" (then backed off to not be a summary) by a political appointee on record over a year ago defending Trump on obstruction.

Declaring "victory" or calling for everyone to just accept that seems to be exactly the strategy being employed by Trump and Barr. Of course Trump and his people WANT us to just accept Barr's characterization of the report. And it does not help when Barr starts to duck and weave on what he is going to eventually release; nor does it help when we start to hear rumblings from those who participated that Barr's characterizations seem all too friendly to Trump.

Release the report.

 

[McDad]

I read the article linked by bham and LG. LG's linked article at Bloomberg, by O'Brien, reads as an opinion piece. In fact, it is in the opinion section of that "news" site. Bham's linked article, by Taibbi, has much more documentation of the "paper trail". It reads as someone who has built a case and presented the evidence for that case. Interestingly, the Bloomberg author calls the other author provocative, vivid, gusty, reckless and his article important, thoughtful, and wayward. To my untrained eye, his article was everything but reckless and wayward.

 

[lawgator1]

I read the article linked by bham and LG. LG's linked article at Bloomberg reads as an opinion piece. In fact, it is in the opinion section of that "news" site. Bham's linked article has much more documentation of the "paper trail". It reads as someone who has built a case and presented the evidence for that case. Interestingly, the Bloomberg author calls the other author provocative, vivid, gusty, reckless and his article important, thoughtful, and wayward. To my untrained eye, his article was everything but reckless and wayward.

Bham's linked article is premised on the assumption that what Barr said about Mueller's report is accurate and complete. It is becoming increasingly clear that we cannot just assume that.

Now, it may TURN OUT that Barr's characterization of the report is accurate and complete. But perhaps not.

 

[McDad]

Bham's linked article is premised on the assumption that what Barr said about Mueller's report is accurate and complete. It is becoming increasingly clear that we cannot just assume that.

Now, it may TURN OUT that Barr's characterization of the report is accurate and complete. But perhaps not.

...And you know the article's premise because you read the article in its entirety for yourself? (3rd time asking, btw)

 

[BigOrangeD]

Bham's linked article is premised on the assumption that what Barr said about Mueller's report is accurate and complete. It is becoming increasingly clear that we cannot just assume that.

Now, it may TURN OUT that Barr's characterization of the report is accurate and complete. But perhaps not.

Nothing is clear. All you have are people reporting from anonymous sources.

 

[LouderVol]

The larger point is this: Our sole source of knowledge right now of Mueller's 400 page report is a 4 page "summary" (then backed off to not be a summary) by a political appointee on record over a year ago defending Trump on obstruction.

Declaring "victory" or calling for everyone to just accept that seems to be exactly the strategy being employed by Trump and Barr. Of course Trump and his people WANT us to just accept Barr's characterization of the report. And it does not help when Barr starts to duck and weave on what he is going to eventually release; nor does it help when we start to hear rumblings from those who participated that Barr's characterizations seem all too friendly to Trump.

Release the report.

I am willing to bet his defense of Trump was based on a legal argument or precedent. But that's just me making assumptions on his job title of ATTORNEY GENERAL.

victory was always our president not being a spy. Sorry that doesn't please you. For 2 plus years you have been celebrating and blowing up every little thing that came out against Trump. But you can't even put up with 2 weeks of news that maybe Trump isn't guilty.

I don't know why you keep calling for the release of the report. Maybe your own "I am Spartacus" moment. It has already been announced when it will be released. AFAIK he hasn't ducked that.

how "friendly" it is to Trump is irrelevant. Are they going to be able to indict off of it? Yes or no?

 

[LouderVol]

Bham's linked article is premised on the assumption that what Barr said about Mueller's report is accurate and complete. It is becoming increasingly clear that we cannot just assume that.

Now, it may TURN OUT that Barr's characterization of the report is accurate and complete. But perhaps not.

not at all. The article spends half its time breaking down specific cases of the media screwing the pooch in an effort to be first instead of correct. Doesn't matter if Trump ends up guilty because of the Mueller report, people got the Russian hacking of Vermont utilities wrong. That's what the article covers.

It talks about the LIES from the media, hence the reference to WMDs.

 

[hog88]

Bham's linked article is premised on the assumption that what Barr said about Mueller's report is accurate and complete. It is becoming increasingly clear that we cannot just assume that.

Now, it may TURN OUT that Barr's characterization of the report is accurate and complete. But perhaps not.

Do you honestly think there is any chance Barr embellished, or otherwise took liberties with his summary of The Muells report?

 

[McDad]

how "friendly" it is to Trump is irrelevant. Are they going to be able to indict off of it? Yes or no?

This is why I asked yesterday who has seen the report. If there is criminal behavior contained in it, wouldn't the Justice Dept, Democrat leadership, etc be moving forward with vigorous pursuit of indictments? Or, at a minimum, opposition political maneuvering?

 

[hog88]

This is why I asked yesterday who has seen the report. If there is criminal behavior contained in it, wouldn't the Justice Dept, Democrat leadership, etc be moving forward with vigorous pursuit of indictments? Or, at a minimum, opposition political maneuvering?

No way in hades would Barr covering up criminal activity mentioned in the Muells report stay secret for 2 weeks.

 

[McDad]

Do you honestly think there is any chance Barr embellished, or otherwise took liberties with his summary of The Muells report?

I think it is possible, tbh. Reason why is politics makes for some really stupid decision making. If Barr is putting politics above his own reputation, then I could see a chance he embellished or mislead. The sheer stupidity of doing so would be mind boggling, though. Even it the report isn't officially released, eventually it is going to make its way to the media.

 

[McDad]

No way in hades would Barr covering up criminal activity mentioned in the Muells report stay secret for 2 weeks.

I tend to agree. If there were a smoking gun in the report, Pelosi et al plus the justice department would have not been able to contain themselves (if they were privy to the report).

 

[hog88]

I think it is possible, tbh. Reason why is politics makes for some really stupid decision making. If Barr is putting politics above his own reputation, then I could see a chance he embellished or mislead. The sheer stupidity of doing so would be mind boggling, though. Even it the report isn't officially released, eventually it is going to make its way to the media.

I can't see Barr doing something so monumentally stupid as to mislead or embellish the reports findings. There's more than 1 copy and it would get leaked in a heartbeat if it wasn't being presented as written. Barr knows this.

 

[newyorkvol]

Edit: not sure why it copied as strikerhrough. Sorry

Most won’t read this as well, because it’s more than 140 characters, but anyway....

From O’Brien in Bloomberg:
“I’ll avoid debating the merits of how Barr handled Mueller’s work here, but his take that Mueller, without fully exonerating Trump, absolved him of conspiring with Russia became a rallying cry for the president and for critics eager to zap the media (and cable news in particular) for breathless coverage of a probe memorialized in a report most people haven’t read.”

Quotes from Barr “summary” (or whatever he wants to call it):
1) “As the (SC) report states: “[T]he investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.”
2) regarding obstruction:
Our determination was made without regard to, and is not based on, the constitutional considerations that surround the indictment and criminal prosecution of a sitting president.
In making this determination, we noted that the Special Counsel recognized that “the evidence does not establish that the President was involved in an underlying crime related to Russian election interference," and that, while not determinative, the absence of such evidence bears upon the President's intent with respect to obstruction. Generally speaking, to obtain and sustain an obstruction conviction, the government would need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a person, acting with corrupt intent, engaged in obstructive conduct with a sufficient nexus to a pending or contemplated proceeding. In cataloguing the President's actions, many of which took place in public view, the report identifies no actions that, in our judgment, constitute obstructive conduct, had a nexus to a pending or contemplated proceeding, and were done with corrupt intent, each of which, under the Department's principles of federal prosecution guiding charging decisions, would need to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt to establish an obstruction-of-justice offense.
3) Regarding release:
Based on my discussions with the Special Counsel and my initial review, it is apparent that the report contains material that is or could be subject to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e), which imposes restrictions on the use and disclosure of information relating to “matter occurring before [a] grand jury.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e)(2)(B). Rule 6(e) generally limits disclosure of certain grand jury information in a criminal investigation and prosecution. Id. Disclosure of 6(e) material beyond the strict limits set forth in the rule is a crime in certain circumstances. See, e.g., 18 U.S.C. § 401(3). This restriction protects the integrity of grand jury proceedings and ensures that the unique and invaluable investigative powers of a grand jury are used strictly for their intended criminal justice function.
Given these restrictions, the schedule for processing the report depends in part on how quickly the Department can identify the 6(e) material that by law cannot be made public. I have requested the assistance of the Special Counsel in identifying all 6(e) information contained in the report as quickly as possible.

 

[hog88]

I tend to agree. If there were a smoking gun in the report, Pelosi et al plus the justice department would have not been able to contain themselves (if they were privy to the report).

The Muell and his team have copies so any misrepresentations would find it's way to the press.

 

[lawgator1]

I tend to agree. If there were a smoking gun in the report, Pelosi et al plus the justice department would have not been able to contain themselves (if they were privy to the report).

It does not have to be a "smoking gun." It does not have to be audio of Trump on the phone with Putin saying "Hey Vlad, let's collude."

The question to me is whether Trump knew Russia was taking action to help him win, that Trump overtly or even impliedly offered to assist in that effort, or whether there was any sort of discussion of helping Russia should he win, i.e. relax sanctions.

We know that Trump publicly invited their help and that his team met with Russian agent to "get dirt" on HRC. We know that polling data was shared with Russian agents. We don't know if there was any other effort to coordinate anything with Russia. We also do not know if there was ever an agreement to favor Russia once elected. The closest we have to that is the change in the GOP platform.

Based on public reporting, Mueller investigated how that change came to be. That,. to me, is of paramount importance. It will tell us a lot, one way or another.

 

[luthervol]

The Muell and his team have copies so any misrepresentations would find it's way to the press.

And you will believe the press when it is released?

 

[hog88]

And you will believe the press when it is released?

It will be obvious if it is real or faked.

 

[hog88]

It does not have to be a "smoking gun." It does not have to be audio of Trump on the phone with Putin saying "Hey Vlad, let's collude."

The question to me is whether Trump knew Russia was taking action to help him win, that Trump overtly or even impliedly offered to assist in that effort, or whether there was any sort of discussion of helping Russia should he win, i.e. relax sanctions.

We know that Trump publicly invited their help and that his team met with Russian agent to "get dirt" on HRC. We know that polling data was shared with Russian agents. We don't know if there was any other effort to coordinate anything with Russia. We also do not know if there was ever an agreement to favor Russia once elected. The closest we have to that is the change in the GOP platform.

Based on public reporting, Mueller investigated how that change came to be. That,. to me, is of paramount importance. It will tell us a lot, one way or another.

If it to the Muell that neither Trump nor anyone associated with his team colluded or conspired with Russia how would the report tell you anything different? Or is this an admission that you do not trust the Muell?

 

[lawgator1]

If it to the Muell that neither Trump nor anyone associated with his team colluded or conspired with Russia how would the report tell you anything different? Or is this an admission that you do not trust the Muell?

I have zero reason not to trust Mueller at this point.

You assume that Barr's representation of Mueller's findings on this point are accurate and complete. I question whether that is true.

 

[AirVol]

Who was it on here certain that Kush and Don Jr were gonna be indicted by The Mull?

Who was it? Fess up dammit.