David Nunez on Russia hoax

[FreeinChrist]

What Mueller Found on Russia and on Obstruction: A First Analysis

No, Mueller did not find a criminal conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia, and no, he did not conclude that President Trump had obstructed justice. But Mueller emphatically did not find that there had been “no collusion” either. Indeed, he described in page after damning page a dramatic pattern of Russian outreach to figures close to the president, including to Trump’s campaign and his business; Mueller described receptivity to this outreach on the part of those figures; he described a positive eagerness on the part of the Trump campaign to benefit from illegal Russian activity and that of its cutouts; he described serial lies about it all. And he described as well a pattern of behavior on the part of the president in his interactions with law enforcement that is simply incompatible with the president’s duty to “take care” that the laws are “faithfully executed”—a pattern Mueller explicitly declined to conclude did not obstruct justice.
​

Not concluding obstruction has been explained many times, and by Mueller. He could not indict a sitting president nor try him. That is for the congress.
But Mueller did not say 'no collusion'. And he sure didn't imply no obstruction.

The OP has the video of Nunez's opening statement for June 12th. Here is Rep. Schiff's opening statement:

Rep. Schiff Opening Remarks at House Intelligence Hearing Open Hearing on Counterintelligence Implications of the Mueller Report | C-SPAN.org


It is not a hoax that Russia tried to interfere with the 2016 election. It is not a hoax that members of the Trump campaign had contacts with Russians 141 times. In fact, from the link at the top of this post:

This report shows that the Trump campaign was reasonably aware of the Russian efforts, at least on the hacking side. They were aware the Russians sought to help them win. They welcomed that assistance. Instead of warning the American public, they devised a public relations and campaign strategy that sought to capitalize on Russia’s illicit assistance. In other words, the Russians and the Trump campaign shared a common goal, and each side worked to achieve that goal with basic knowledge of the other side’s intention. They just didn’t agree to work toward that goal together.
​

In fact, the recent statement from Trump about listening to information from foreign countries on the opposition, the FEC had to come out and clearly state the law:

‘Let me make something 100% clear’: FEC chair lays down the law on foreign help

“Let me make something 100% clear to the American public and anyone running for public office: It is illegal for any person to solicit, accept, or receive anything of value from a foreign national in connection with a U.S. election,“ wrote Ellen Weintraub, chairwoman of the FEC. “This is not a novel concept.“​

Who can forget Nunez's joke of a midnight run to the White House. pfft

 

[FreeinChrist]

What Mueller Found on Russia and on Obstruction: A First Analysis

No, Mueller did not find a criminal conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia, and no, he did not conclude that President Trump had obstructed justice. But Mueller emphatically did not find that there had been “no collusion” either. Indeed, he described in page after damning page a dramatic pattern of Russian outreach to figures close to the president, including to Trump’s campaign and his business; Mueller described receptivity to this outreach on the part of those figures; he described a positive eagerness on the part of the Trump campaign to benefit from illegal Russian activity and that of its cutouts; he described serial lies about it all. And he described as well a pattern of behavior on the part of the president in his interactions with law enforcement that is simply incompatible with the president’s duty to “take care” that the laws are “faithfully executed”—a pattern Mueller explicitly declined to conclude did not obstruct justice.
​

Not concluding obstruction has been explained many times, and by Mueller. He could not indict a sitting president nor try him. That is for the congress.
But Mueller did not say 'no collusion'. And he sure didn't imply no obstruction.

The OP has the video of Nunez's opening statement for June 12th. Here is Rep. Schiff's opening statement:

Rep. Schiff Opening Remarks at House Intelligence Hearing Open Hearing on Counterintelligence Implications of the Mueller Report | C-SPAN.org


It is not a hoax that Russia tried to interfere with the 2016 election. It is not a hoax that members of the Trump campaign had contacts with Russians 141 times. In fact, from the link at the top of this post:

This report shows that the Trump campaign was reasonably aware of the Russian efforts, at least on the hacking side. They were aware the Russians sought to help them win. They welcomed that assistance. Instead of warning the American public, they devised a public relations and campaign strategy that sought to capitalize on Russia’s illicit assistance. In other words, the Russians and the Trump campaign shared a common goal, and each side worked to achieve that goal with basic knowledge of the other side’s intention. They just didn’t agree to work toward that goal together.
​

In fact, the recent statement from Trump about listening to information from foreign countries on the opposition, the FEC had to come out and clearly state the law:

‘Let me make something 100% clear’: FEC chair lays down the law on foreign help

“Let me make something 100% clear to the American public and anyone running for public office: It is illegal for any person to solicit, accept, or receive anything of value from a foreign national in connection with a U.S. election,“ wrote Ellen Weintraub, chairwoman of the FEC. “This is not a novel concept.“​

Who can forget Nunez's joke of a midnight run to the White House. pfft

Here is a clip of Schiff saying some similar things in the same committee hearing as the clip in the OP:

Schiff 3 | C-SPAN.org

 

[hislegacy]

No, Mueller did not find a criminal conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia, and no, he did not conclude that President Trump had obstructed justice.

Then people should stop saying he did.

What part of no do they not understand, other than they publicly embarrassed themselves after three years of saying they had hard evidence, calling the President a traitor, calling the President a Russian Agent - and the Mueller find no conspiracy and no obstruction.

So they are in full panic mode. (My opinion) Their words have blown up in their faces and Mueller with 19 attorney's, 40 special agents and all the power of the Special Counsels office unfettered and fully funded for two years could not find anything.

What is the definition of insanity? Doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.

 

[SimplyMe]

Even USA Today has said it

Mueller report: Investigation found no evidence Trump conspired with Russia, leaves obstruction question open

Special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation did not find evidence that President Donald Trump or members of his campaign conspired with Russia's efforts to sway the 2016 election
​

That is why the narrative changed to obstruction, they failed on their conspiracy in spades, yet some of the die hard conspiracy theorist cling onto the charges like Grimm death.

Please, this is USA Today reporting on Barr's letter to Congress, before the Mueller Report had been released to Congress or the public. This isn't an opinion of USA Today, or even them reporting on what the Mueller Report actually says -- they had not yet seen the report. Instead, this is their reporting of Barr's report of what is actually in the Mueller Report; and we now know that Barr was not honest about what was actually contained in the report.

 

[hislegacy]

and we now know that Barr was not honest about what was actually contained in the report.

Citation please:

 

[SimplyMe]

Citation please:

The Mueller Report

 

[FreeinChrist]

Then people should stop saying he did.

What part of no do they not understand, other than they publicly embarrassed themselves after three years of saying they had hard evidence, calling the President a traitor, calling the President a Russian Agent - and the Mueller find no conspiracy and no obstruction.

So they are in full panic mode. (My opinion) Their words have blown up in their faces and Mueller with 19 attorney's, 40 special agents and all the power of the Special Counsels office unfettered and fully funded for two years could not find anything.

What is the definition of insanity? Doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.

No, his campaign did collude with Russia in that they knew of the interference, lied about it, welcomed it - and did not contact the FBI. Mueller could not prove criminal conspiracy which is the actual crime it would fall under. He didn't say there was no evidence of it.

The DNC did not embarrass themselves. Folks are seeing the failure of the Republicans to pass legislation to protect our elections. McConnell shuts it down.
Folks are seeing the failure of Republicans to look into the Russian interference that has been proven by the intelligence agency. Trump has his base, but he is not getting more and is losing those who were not crazy about him anyway.

 

[hislegacy]

The Mueller Report

Quote the contradiction

 

[bhsmte]

The Mueller Report

The main issue with barr and mueller, is there interpretation of how to apply obstruction law to the evidence.

You have to remember, barr did not legally have to release muellers report, but he did so, on his own.

What still bothers me about this whole thing, is barr has testified under oath and mueller has not. Also, barr claims he had witnesses when he stated he asked mueller 3 times, whether he decided to not charge trump, or make a call on obstruction, because of the doj guideline, on not charging a sitting president. Barr states mueller said no and mueller contradicted this at his public statement. Someone is lying and mueller needs to testify.

 

[hislegacy]

Someone is lying and mueller needs to testify.

Completely agree

 

[KCfromNC]

Then people should stop saying he did.

Which people are you talking about?

 

[KCfromNC]

The main issue with barr and mueller, is there interpretation of how to apply obstruction law to the evidence.

You have to remember, barr did not legally have to release muellers report, but he did so, on his own.

What still bothers me about this whole thing, is barr has testified under oath and mueller has not. Also, barr claims he had witnesses when he stated he asked mueller 3 times, whether he decided to not charge trump, or make a call on obstruction, because of the doj guideline, on not charging a sitting president. Barr states mueller said no and mueller contradicted this at his public statement. Someone is lying and mueller needs to testify.

I'll continue to note that none of this has any bearing in the slightest on the hundreds of pages of documented evidence in the Mueller report. I mean, I get it, you're very very concerned over why someone who couldn't call for the prosecution of someone didn't do so, but it doesn't change any of the actual facts surrounding the case.

I mean, if you're looking to get Barr thrown in prison I'm all for it, but that seems like a minor issue compared with multiple documented cases of a sitting president actively working to obstruct an investigation into his campaign working with a hostile foreign power to influence the election.

 

[bhsmte]

I'll continue to note that none of this has any bearing in the slightest on the hundreds of pages of documented evidence in the Mueller report. I mean, I get it, you're very very concerned over why someone who couldn't call for the prosecution of someone didn't do so, but it doesn't change any of the actual facts surrounding the case.

I mean, if you're looking to get Barr thrown in prison I'm all for it, but that seems like a minor issue compared with multiple documented cases of a sitting president actively working to obstruct an investigation into his campaign working with a hostile foreign power to influence the election.

I am more concerned about a special council, who was paid by tax payers, thinking he is above going under oath to answer questions. His comments of my report speaks for itself, are simply arrogant.

Could you see the trial of an accused, where evidence from an investigator is being used by the prosecution and the investigator refuses to testify in court and be cross examined?

Barr thrown in prison? Assume much? How could we know who potentially lied until mueller raises his right hand and answers questions? Maybe mueller would give a different answer under oath, than he did in his press statement. If he doesnt, than investigate who is lying and bring on these witnesses that barr claims were in the room. I would want to know, if mueller or barr were lying about an important issue.

 

[KCfromNC]

I am more concerned about a special council, who was paid by tax payers, thinking he is above going under oath to answer questions. His comments of my report speaks for itself, are simply arrogant.

Which specific issues do you have with the content, format or presentation of the report?

Could you see the trial of an accused, where evidence from an investigator is being used by the prosecution and the investigator refuses to testify in court and be cross examined?

You mean like in all of the cases where Trump employees have been found guilty of various crimes, or some other trial?

Barr thrown in prison? Assume much? How could we know who potentially lied until mueller raises his right hand and answers questions?

By looking at Barr's actions so far. Remember him trying to defend his statements by both claiming that Mueller wasn't part of Mueller's team and that he also thought the memo in question was written by someone other than Mueller? Those sorts of obvious contradictions are an easy way to catch someone in a lie.

 

[Cimorene]

Well said.

What the man said in the video is about as "well said" and factually correct as the thread title here.

 

[hislegacy]

This is the month the OG report is supposed to be coming out. Should be interesting

 

[Tanj]

Also, barr claims he had witnesses when he stated he asked mueller 3 times

Sounds a bit biblical to me.

 

[bhsmte]

Sounds a bit biblical to me.

I guess if you decide to take it that way.