"Defending the Indefensible"

[redleghunter]

You don’t have a federally controlled voting system. Instead of have a state controlled, wildly insecure and fragmented set of voting systems which are easily penetrated by hackers and which many of the states themselves show no interest whatsoever in securing.

Did you know that’s Russia hacked all 50 states voting systems in 2016? Do you know that in multiple states they managed to penetrate the systems to the extent that they could change voters? Do you know that no-one actually knows whether they changes the votes or not? This isn’t some conspiracy theory it’s actual fact, but most people don’t know this because the government told a series of lies to the public to stop that information becoming public, lies which were then revealed via FOI requests.

Russia may very well have changed the results of your last election. US actors may have changed the results of previous ones. No-one actually knows, because the government don’t want people to know how completely insecure your voting systems actually are. In a hacker conference test a while ago hackers successfully broke into every single one of the voting systems used in the US. Many have no paper trails to confirm the result. In Georgia last election the university where the results were stored deleted all their backups preventing any investigation.

If you care about election security then this stuff should make you both terrified and furious. But instead people are distracted by nonsense like voter ID, while the very voting systems themselves are compromised.

Did you know Russia did not change one vote? Even through Obama let it all happen.

 

[Gigimo]

Did you know Russia did not change one vote? Even through Obama let it all happen.

Last poll I seen on this subject said a lot of people believe the Russians did change votes even though it didn't happen

 

[childeye 2]

Had the evidence been "overwhelming" as you say, then the report would have said that. Instead, the report stated that the president couldn't be exonerated.

As pointed out in the hearing this past week. Exoneration is not a legal standard. Never has been ... and Mueller couldn't cite one single instance when anyone had attempted previously to apply it as a standard.

Respectfully, we're talking past one another here. I have also pointed out the contradiction that must ultimately end in the report not being able to state that there is overwhelming evidence of obstruction.

 

[redleghunter]

Respectfully, we're talking past one another here. I have also pointed out the contradiction that must ultimately end in the report not being able to state that there is overwhelming evidence of obstruction.

There was either obstruction or no obstruction. There’s no meter. It’s either or.

 

[Kaon]

Mueller was unfamiliar with the conspiracy theories which grew up during his investigation and was unsure about how to respond to them.

But he made his main point, the one point Republicans don't want made:

Russian interference in the 2016 election was real. It really happened and was not a hoax.

This is the kernel of it.

 

[redleghunter]

This is the kernel of it.

That has truth to it. Mueller seemed to not know the Trump dossier was political party opposition research obtained through a foreign agent using Russian contacts.

 

[DaisyDay]

Who to report to has no bearing on the situation. Mueller (or whoever was in charge) could have still pointed out federal statutes violated to the AG. The AG would then be compelled to report to Congress.

Compelled by who or what? No, the AG does not report to Congress, but to the Executive Branch - Donald himself.

 

[redleghunter]

Compelled by who or what? No, the AG does not report to Congress, but to the Executive Branch - Donald himself.

Compelled by law. If a crime was committed, it would be stated as such and the proper authority (House) would impeach.

Ken Starr clearly indicated in his report President Clinton perjured before a grand jury.

 

[DaisyDay]

That is simply contrary to common sense.

What is? That the House would impeach without any assurance of conviction? My point entirely.

But sure, if a political party decided to have a giant hissy fit and declare to the American people

"We impeached not because of high crimes nor misdemeanors, we are petulant children and we are angry."

I wouldn't recommend such a thing, but the loopy dems are free to try it.

Insults noted. This is what the Democrats are, in fact, NOT doing. Also, impressive backtracking - a post ago you insisted that they "cannot impeach" Now you say it makes no sense for them to do it which is arguing my point, and the point of many others, as if it were your own.

Then, they will suck on dirty socks. No biggie.

The projection is strong in your post. It shows how you think, not how anyone else is acting.

No one could crime like Obama. The Chicago Way.

Way to slander.

Shoot, the dude even got liberals to think Hillary can just delete emails and give secrets away like candy.

More slander.

That's impressive.

A post replete with disinformation.

 

[NightHawkeye]

Way to slander.

Then Obama should sue.

Really, though, it sounds more like a little hyperbole which makes an effective point. The Obama DOJ did, in point of fact, commit unlawful acts, running guns to criminals in Mexico is how Obama's DOJ started out under Barack's tenure.

More slander.

Who exactly is slandering who here?

A post replete with disinformation.

Surely, you didn't miss that poster's claim about sarcasm?

 

[Arcangl86]

Compelled by law. If a crime was committed, it would be stated as such and the proper authority (House) would impeach.

Ken Starr clearly indicated in his report President Clinton perjured before a grand jury.

Ken Starr also operated under a different legal framework than Robert Muller. Starr was required to report to Congress, and Muller was required to report to the AG. Muller was also required to operate under DoJ rules and policies, one of which is that the President is not indictable. Starr did not have that same restriction.

 

[childeye 2]

There was either obstruction or no obstruction. There’s no meter. It’s either or.

Of course, either obstruction occurred or it didn't occur. But first consider the semantics which will occur in the circumstance where a person is appointed to investigate whether or not a crime was committed, but they're not allowed to make any determination whether or not a crime was committed. Tell me whether you understand this or you don't.

 

[childeye 2]

Compelled by law. If a crime was committed, it would be stated as such and the proper authority (House) would impeach.

Ken Starr clearly indicated in his report President Clinton perjured before a grand jury.

Ken Starr was not under the same guidelines that Mueller was. Google it for yourself, the law concerning special counsel was changed right after Ken Starr.

 

[childeye 2]

That has truth to it. Mueller seemed to not know the Trump dossier was political party opposition research obtained through a foreign agent using Russian contacts.

Not true, the report actually stated that they were aware. The way the question was posed contained an insinuation which Mueller would not vindicate.

 

[NightHawkeye]

Of course, either obstruction occurred or it didn't occur. But first consider the semantics which will occur in the circumstance where a person is appointed to investigate whether or not a crime was committed, but they're not allowed to make any determination whether or not a crime was committed.

Although not addressed to me ... I'll respond.

If Mueller had a case for obstruction ... he would have stated that. In fact, Mueller would have recommended charges. I daresay everyone here understands that. The fact that Trump couldn't be "indicted" for obstruction doesn't matter at all. Rendering an "Indictment" was not Mueller's job. Mueller's job was to determine whether the evidence was sufficient to bring charges.

The FACT is that Mueller had insufficient evidence to refer charges ... and so he didn't. It's not complicated.

 

[childeye 2]

Although not addressed to me ... I'll respond.

If Mueller had a case for obstruction ... he would have stated that. In fact, Mueller would have recommended charges. I daresay everyone here understands that. The fact that Trump couldn't be "indicted" for obstruction doesn't matter at all. Rendering an "Indictment" was not Mueller's job. Mueller's job was to determine whether the evidence was sufficient to bring charges.

The FACT is that Mueller had insufficient evidence to refer charges ... and so he didn't. It's not complicated.

Respectfully, facts are not founded on speculation. Facts are self evident. I'm saying that Mueller was not allowed as per DOJ guidelines to state that he had a case for obstruction. Consider this exchange:

Buck: "Could you charge the president with a crime after he left office?"

Mueller: "Yes."

Buck: "You believe that you could charge the president of the United States with obstruction of justice after he left office?"

Mueller: "Yes."

From Mueller's opening statement: Robert Mueller: 04:19 "Based on Justice Department policy and principles of fairness, we decided we would not make a determination as to whether the president committed a crime. That was our decision then and it remains our decision today."

 

[redleghunter]

Ken Starr also operated under a different legal framework than Robert Muller. Starr was required to report to Congress, and Muller was required to report to the AG. Muller was also required to operate under DoJ rules and policies, one of which is that the President is not indictable. Starr did not have that same restriction.

It matters not. Statute violated report. Then it would be up to the House.

 

[redleghunter]

Respectfully, facts are not founded on speculation. Facts are self evident. I'm saying that Mueller was not allowed as per DOJ guidelines to state that he had a case for obstruction. Consider this exchange:

Buck: "Could you charge the president with a crime after he left office?"

Mueller: "Yes."

Buck: "You believe that you could charge the president of the United States with obstruction of justice after he left office?"

Mueller: "Yes."

Going to have to see that portion of the testimony.

 

[redleghunter]

Of course, either obstruction occurred or it didn't occur. But first consider the semantics which will occur in the circumstance where a person is appointed to investigate whether or not a crime was committed, but they're not allowed to make any determination whether or not a crime was committed. Tell me whether you understand this or you don't.

I do know what investigate means. It seems Mueller forgot.

 

[childeye 2]

I do know what investigate means.

Yes of course but that's not the question. I'm asking if you see the contradiction in appointing a special counsel to investigate whether or not a crime was committed, and yet not allow the special counsel to determine whether or not a crime was committed? If so, then you should be able to understand how the semantics form so that it's possible for Mueller to believe a crime was committed, but not be able to say he believes a crime was committed. Do you get that?