Time For Switching Sides On Mueller

[AllButNone]

We need to hear more about what is in the report.

Definitely this, 1000%.

Barr's letter raises more questions than it answers. Once again an investigation has determined Russia hacked the DNC, and made overt efforts to assist the Trump campaign. Why? These overt efforts to assist Trump weren't reported to the FBI. Why? We know there were lies about it from the Trump campaign. Again, why? We know Trump's campaign manager shared information with a Putin lackey, but obviously this was dropped with regard to the question of collusion. Why?

Most important, how does the question of obstruction of justice fall into this? The way the DoJ has presented this, the question remains open on a couple of fronts. This potentially undermines the strength of the conclusions from the rest of the report.

That there was no collusion is believable. But there are enough questions remaining that it's important to see as much of the Mueller report as possible, Barr's letter is not the least bit satisfying.

But I see little reason to be suspicious of Mueller. Every indication is that he did the best he could to answer the question he was tasked to answer.

 

[Rion]

There is a reason Barr talked in his letter about having Mueller and Rosenstein assist in deciding what can be released. There is significant information in the report.

Mueller uncovered a great deal and indicted quite a few including Manafort, Flynn, Gates, Cohen, Stone and 13 Russians. There are more. see All of Robert Mueller’s indictments and plea deals in the Russia investigation

And because of the investigation, we found out about the hush payments, and the ongoing negotiations for Trump Tower Moscow during his primary campaign, and much more. He may not be recommending indictments simply because there is not enough evidence for conviction despite the strong suggestion it took place. Robert Mueller report will be a gold mine of improprieties. Trump shouldn't celebrate yet.

A Mueller decision to decline any new indictments does not, by itself, mean that Mueller concluded President Donald Trump committed no crimes. In only means that Mueller followed DOJ protocol that prohibits the department from indicting a sitting president.......

Profoundly 'swamp-like' conduct at the least
Given the evidence already breaking the seams of the public domain, it is hard to imagine that Mueller’s report will offer a full exoneration of the president and his campaign. Democrats may be disappointed that Mueller did not indict the likes of Donald Trump Jr. and Jared Kushner, who many consider the closest orbiting co-conspirators to the president. But, given the signs that Mueller’s investigation has been thorough, his report will likely be a treasure trove of evidence that, if not establishing outright crimes, will establish profoundly “swamp-like” conduct by Trump and members of his inner circle.

Perhaps the most significant question Mueller’s report can answer is whether there is evidence that Trump has been compromised by Russia. It may not be a crime to lie to the American public about currying favor with a foreign adversary, to make hundreds of millions of dollars by building Trump Tower Moscow. But it helps explain the president’s siding with Vladimir Putin over U.S. intelligence agencies and his refusal to implement congressionally mandated sanctions against Russia for its election interference.

If Mueller’s report is the gold mine of impropriety I predict it to be, expect Barr to refuse full disclosure and the resulting battle to end up in the Supreme Court.
​

And investigations were handed off to others such as the Southern District of New York. see:
After Mueller: The Ongoing Investigations Surrounding Trump

We need to hear more about what is in the report.

I posted the leaked report earlier. It's a big fat nothing.

 

[cow451]

I posted the leaked report earlier. It's a big fat nothing.

Which means the report, minus national security issues should be published. President Transparency said he thought it should.

 

[mark46]

Which means the report, minus national security issues should be published. President Transparency said he thought it should.

===============
minus national security interests, AND minus grand jury testimony
======
However, classified information should be given to appropriate committees. After all, the primary issue was attempted Russian interference, and how to reduce possible future effects.

Also, the many contacts of Trumpfolk with the Russians was NOT illegal. Perhaps, better legislation is needed.
======
As an aside, obstruction is a red herring when there was no underlying crime. I'm not sure that anyone should care. The president tried to get those in his direct control (who he could fire at any time) to reduce or stop their efforts. Mueller and his investigation were not affected. Again, perhaps stronger legislation is needed.
=====
The HUGE ongoing effects of this investigation will be the cases given over to other courts plus the convictions on crimes not associated with Russian action. The focus on collusion was indeed what was intended when Mueller was hired, but he was allowed to go far astray, and he did, principally by sending cases to others for prosecution.

 

[com7fy8]

the fact that Russia actively worked to use it's considerable cyber capabilities to covertly campaign on Trumps behalf, is very troubling.

If Russia did help Donald to get votes or a higher vote count, this would mean he really lost, possibly . . . even if he did not take part in this.

So, whether or not there was collusion by him with the Russians, still their meddling, for all I know, could mean he did not get as many votes as have been credited to him.

So, the real issue could be if people getting tricked and hacking could have gotten him the votes needed to win, in which case he did not. One might want to steer attention away from this possibility, by calling attention only to if collusion was confirmed or not.

It is illegal for a foreign power to influence our elections, yet how can it be stopped when our laws allow people to buy our government?

Well, the United States has been influencing things in other countries, for some time. I would think there are legals ways to influence, then, and illegal ways.

And if we pray for the elections of other countries . . . . . . we might have more influence than the legal voters.

 

[Rion]

If Russia did help Donald to get votes or a higher vote count, this would mean he really lost, possibly . . . even if he did not take part in this.

So, whether or not there was collusion by him with the Russians, still their meddling, for all I know, could mean he did not get as many votes as have been credited to him.

So, the real issue could be if people getting tricked and hacking could have gotten him the votes needed to win, in which case he did not. One might want to steer attention away from this possibility, by calling attention only to if collusion was confirmed or not.

Well, the United States has been influencing things in other countries, for some time. I would think there are legals ways to influence, then, and illegal ways.

And if we pray for the elections of other countries . . . . . . we might have more influence than the legal voters.

They were campaigning for both sides. The purpose was to increase hostility.

 

[Speedwell]

If Russia did help Donald to get votes or a higher vote count, this would mean he really lost, possibly . . . even if he did not take part in this.

So, whether or not there was collusion by him with the Russians, still their meddling, for all I know, could mean he did not get as many votes as have been credited to him.

Too late. The election is over and certified. Trump won and has taken office.

There is no possibility that the election could be overturned and Hillary installed in his place, except in lurid right-wing fantasies.

 

[com7fy8]

They were campaigning for both sides. The purpose was to increase hostility.

Well, I can see why the Russians might have this as their strategy. They know how the United States and others helped to bring out how the U.S.S.R. was not united, so the so-called "Union" would break up > this is how I have gotten it, anyway.

So, may be Russia is trying to make what goes around come back around to America, so there is weakness and then even political civil war and then maybe states seceding. It seems an interviewed American political leader was implying that American leadership and maybe others helped to push the U.S.S.R. over the edge.

When asked about how the U.S.S.R. had fallen, he said something like, "We helped things along, by giving them a little push."

But now . . . I can see . . . two things >

America is older, now, and ones are discovering more and more details of how people do not all want the same thing. People's nature is starting to show up, more, with the resulting divisions.

And, ones have not had major unifying causes to force everyone to stay together, like World War 2, for one sort of an example. So, the states and groups have had time to inbreed with their own selves and get more away from other states and political groups.

And so it appears, to me, that the "indivisible" country does not really exist. But the division is not clearly showing up between geographical areas, but it could come enough to result in states separating. But people, it seems, still have enough stuff for living the lives they want.

 

[childeye 2]

If Russia did help Donald to get votes or a higher vote count, this would mean he really lost, possibly . . . even if he did not take part in this.

So, whether or not there was collusion by him with the Russians, still their meddling, for all I know, could mean he did not get as many votes as have been credited to him.

Of course this is true, but it kind of makes me laugh to hear Donald say the Russia investigation was invented as a hoax by the Democrats because they're losers.

So, the real issue could be if people getting tricked and hacking could have gotten him the votes needed to win, in which case he did not. One might want to steer attention away from this possibility, by calling attention only to if collusion was confirmed or not.

You're right about that. The mind easily conflates no-collusion = legitimate election.

Well, the United States has been influencing things in other countries, for some time. I would think there are legals ways to influence, then, and illegal ways.

And if we pray for the elections of other countries . . . . . . we might have more influence than the legal voters.

Donald Trump our atonement.

 

[childeye 2]

They were campaigning for both sides. The purpose was to increase hostility.

Respectfully I don't believe that's true at all. The propaganda was decisively against Hillary Clinton. The messaging that was claimed to be pro-Hillary was Machiavellian in that it said things like Muslims for Hillary and Gays for Hillary. And it was being specifically used on face book micro targeting those who would see that as a negative. Money transfers occurred financing anti-Hillary rallies that people actually showed up for. Putin himself said he was for Trump, the emails that we can read for ourselves said Russia was for Trump, and even Trump in a National debate viciously insisted that Putin would never respect someone like Hillary Clinton.

 

[cow451]

Donald Trump our atonement.

Can I choose a different atonement? Maybe watching Sharkboy and Lavagirl? The OA?

 

[KCfromNC]

Maybe so, but none of the Liberals you love to hate in this forum thought "collusion" was very likely in the first place.

Did any of them even fall for the attempts by right-wing propaganda to confuse "collusion" with an actual legal definition of the crimes members of the Trump campaign participated in?

 

[KCfromNC]

No, it wasn't a waste of time. But, having folks testify for 20 hours and catching them in lies is not what it was about.

The investigation was about investigation Russian interference in our election, so that we can be better prepared to defend against their 2020 efforts. No collusion with the Trump campaign was found, with the possible exception of Stone.

And Papadopoulos. And the Trump tower meeting. And the Wikileaks stuff with Manafort. And probably some stuff I'm forgetting.

 

[KCfromNC]

If you remember the special council was appointed in the wake of the firing of James Comey. Trump heard his testimony that he was 'mildly nauseous' at the thought that he might have influenced the outcome of the election. Trump upon hearing that is said to have went 'white hot' over it, Trump fired him over casting aspersions on his election victory.

Not according to Trump himself. Donald said he was thinking about the Russia think when he fired Comey.

 

[KCfromNC]

COLLUSION

... is not a criminal charge in any US code I'm aware of. Why all the focus on someone not being accused of not-a-crime? Might as well pretend the investigation was positive for Trump because he wasn't indicted for wearing shoes or something else which you can't be indicted for in the first place.

 

[mark kennedy]

Not according to Trump himself. Donald said he was thinking about the Russia think when he fired Comey.

According to one of his supporters said he went 'white hot' over Comey saying he was mildly nauseous, at the thought he might have effected the outcome. I caught the news report at random when all of this was going on but apparently he was in a conference call with them when he hit the ceiling. What Trump would say later, the next day actually, was he thought to himself the Russia thing was a made up story anyway, he never said that's why he did it. I think it was pretty much a consensus that Comey had no buisness calling a press conference and certainly shouldn't have been so free with details about what his recommendation was going to be. I personally appreciated him sharing that information but according to DOJ guidelines, it was out of line.

Now I'm not trying to defend Trump, God knows I would never try to stop him from embarrassing himself politically. But I really think the firing of Comey had little to do with Russia, even though the DOJ was already looking into possible collusion, which is kind of normal when someone is making contact with foreign nationals or something looks otherwise out of place.

 

[wing2000]

They were campaigning for both sides. The purpose was to increase hostility.

....and undermine Americans' confidence in their democracy. They succeeded.

 

[wing2000]

Respectfully I don't believe that's true at all. The propaganda was decisively against Hillary Clinton. The messaging that was claimed to be pro-Hillary was Machiavellian in that it said things like Muslims for Hillary and Gays for Hillary. And it was being specifically used on face book micro targeting those who would see that as a negative. Money transfers occurred financing anti-Hillary rallies that people actually showed up for. Putin himself said he was for Trump, the emails that we can read for ourselves said Russia was for Trump, and even Trump in a National debate viciously insisted that Putin would never respect someone like Hillary Clinton.

...and don't forget Trump's meeting with the foreign minister the day after Comey was fired. No American press were allowed - only Russian media sources. The POTUS was portrayed as laughing with the Russian minister after firing the head of America's Counter-intelligence agency. It was a propaganda coup.

It was also an act of betrayal by our President.

As for the Russian campaign, I think Russians undoubtedly focussed on Clinton....however, it's also true that Russian trolls hyped up extreme positions from the Left and Right with the goal of undermining our democracy.

 

[childeye 2]

As for the Russian campaign, I think Russians undoubtedly focussed on Clinton....however, it's also true that Russian trolls hyped up extreme positions from the Left and Right with the goal of undermining our democracy.

It's possible you may be right about the extreme left and right positions, but it would depend on if and who they were micro targeting with these views. An extreme right view played to an extreme right person carries a positive connotation. I haven't seen all of the propaganda, but what I've seen is all intended as anti-Hillary. Have you seen any anti-Trump propaganda from Russia?

 

[Rion]