Mueller Squashes Seth Rich Conspiracy Pushed by Hannity

[_canpakes]

Exiled....

check that

Lol. Comprehension.

[_Dr Exiled]

So, make arrangements to go over to London? Am I missing something here? Assange wanted to debunk the Russia gave me the goods story so he would have been a willing witness. Mueller could have gone over there. His budget was surely big enough. Or maybe they could have set up a telephonic interview?

Out of curiosity what would have stopped Assange from sharing his debunking evidence freely, instead of to Muller? Is there any reason he would need Muller to participate if he had actual evidence he got the information from elsewhere? For a guy with a website that claims to just be for disseminating truth it seems like he had plenty of platform to fight the story other than just saying "I promise it wasn't the Russians".

Assange wanted to work out a limited immunity deal and was in the process of doing so when Comey stopped the negotiations. Assange wanted something in return for his testimony. After Comey was fired and Mueller was appointed, there wasn't even an overture toward Assange by Mueller. If Assange was a target, then why no indictment for his 2016 actions? The current indictment is only for his supposed actions with Manning. Also, Mueller could have forced the issue by demanding an interview without conditions. Assange had a very weak negotiating position while in the embassy and has less of one now that he is in custody. However, nothing. Since Correa left office, the new president was more than willing to aid the Russia hacking narrative and would have accommodated Mueller in arranging a meeting. Yet nothing. Why not interview him now that he is in custody?

Mueller is so sure that Guccifer was involved, but Assange denies this. Why not settle the question by seeing what Assange supposedly has? If he truly was a coward and hiding behind Seth Rich's murder, then why not expose that? It seems that would be very useful for the campaign to demonize Assange that is going on right now. Perhaps it would be another reason to extradite Assange to the US?

In any event, Assange is key to the whole russiagate thing and it seems that he would be a witness or target of the investigation. Yet, nothing.

[_SPG]

OK, Assange is human garbage.

Mueller Report: Assange Smeared Seth Rich to Cover for Russians


Fox News Retracts DNC Staffer Conspiracy Story, But Hannity Keeps It Alive

I hear this term (human garbage) a lot. That will be their title when they are lined up and shot with the rest of human garbage. It's ok to hate people as long as they properly labeled, right? A man has risked his life and others have died, but a report from Mueller saying that Assange is human garbage clears everything up.

Think people, think.

[Guest]

Assange wanted to work out a limited immunity deal and was in the process of doing so when Comey stopped the negotiations. Assange wanted something in return for his testimony. After Comey was fired and Mueller was appointed, there wasn't even an overture toward Assange by Mueller. If Assange was a target, then why no indictment for his 2016 actions? The current indictment is only for his supposed actions with Manning. Also, Mueller could have forced the issue by demanding an interview without conditions. Assange had a very weak negotiating position while in the embassy and has less of one now that he is in custody. However, nothing. Since Correa left office, the new president was more than willing to aid the Russia hacking narrative and would have accommodated Mueller in arranging a meeting. Yet nothing. Why not interview him now that he is in custody?

Mueller is so sure that Guccifer was involved, but Assange denies this. Why not settle the question by seeing what Assange supposedly has? If he truly was a coward and hiding behind Seth Rich's murder, then why not expose that? It seems that would be very useful for the campaign to demonize Assange that is going on right now. Perhaps it would be another reason to extradite Assange to the US?

In any event, Assange is key to the whole russiagate thing and it seems that he would be a witness or target of the investigation. Yet, nothing.

It seems like your argument hinges on the idea that it is impossible to find the truth without speaking to Assange and I'm not sure that is true. It seems highly plausible to me that Mueller & Co. were able to piece together more than enough evidence of the GRU's involvement without whatever information Assange might have to offer (which I personally suspect is non-existent) and large sections of Muller's report bear that out.

As to the charges he will face. It would not surprise me to see additional charges brought against him by the time that is all said in done, whether events from 2016 will be included in that remains to be seen. My understanding is it isn't that difficult to have the British Government consent to extra charges being filed post extradition. Perhaps we will hear more from Assange when it comes time to defend himself.

As to your last paragraph I disagree entirely. Assange was either a pawn for pushing an anti-Clinton narrative or complicit in it, but he isn't the key. He and Wikileaks were mostly just a means to an end. The key is 100% the Trump campaign/admin and their involvement in the matter, specifically in connection to Russian interference, and the investigation rightly centered around that.

edited this and later posts to correct my phone's problem with spelling "Mueller"

[_Dr Exiled]

Assange wanted to work out a limited immunity deal and was in the process of doing so when Comey stopped the negotiations. Assange wanted something in return for his testimony. After Comey was fired and Mueller was appointed, there wasn't even an overture toward Assange by Mueller. If Assange was a target, then why no indictment for his 2016 actions? The current indictment is only for his supposed actions with Manning. Also, Mueller could have forced the issue by demanding an interview without conditions. Assange had a very weak negotiating position while in the embassy and has less of one now that he is in custody. However, nothing. Since Correa left office, the new president was more than willing to aid the Russia hacking narrative and would have accommodated Mueller in arranging a meeting. Yet nothing. Why not interview him now that he is in custody?

Mueller is so sure that Guccifer was involved, but Assange denies this. Why not settle the question by seeing what Assange supposedly has? If he truly was a coward and hiding behind Seth Rich's murder, then why not expose that? It seems that would be very useful for the campaign to demonize Assange that is going on right now. Perhaps it would be another reason to extradite Assange to the US?

In any event, Assange is key to the whole russiagate thing and it seems that he would be a witness or target of the investigation. Yet, nothing.

It seems like your argument hinges on the idea that it is impossible to find the truth without speaking to Assange and I'm not sure that is true. It seems highly plausible to me that Muller & Co. were able to piece together more than enough evidence of the GRU's involvement without whatever information Assange might have to offer (which I personally suspect is non-existent) and large sections of Muller's report bear that out.

As to the charges he will face. It would not surprise me to see additional charges brought against him by the time that is all said in done, whether events from 2016 will be included in that remains to be seen. My understanding is it isn't that difficult to have the British Government consent to extra charges being filed post extradition. Perhaps we will hear more from Assange when it comes time to defend himself.

As to your last paragraph I disagree entirely. Assange was either a pawn for pushing an anti-Clinton narrative or complicit in it, but he isn't the key. He and Wikileaks were mostly just a means to an end. The key is 100% the Trump campaign/admin and their involvement in the matter, specifically in connection to Russian interference, and the investigation rightly centered around that.

I guess this gets to heart of why I don't buy the russiagate hysteria some are trying to push. To me it really doesn't matter whether or not Russia or N. Korea or the devil himself gives us the truth. There wasn't any collusion found in any event and the $100,000 in Facebook ads didn't make people vote for Trump. Also, we need to move on. This gave Trump a gift on a "no collusion" meme that he will use through 2020. If we dwell too much on this, Trump could win a second term and that's what should be stopped. People want to have their pocketbook issues discussed and resolved and I don't they want these issues sacrificed by having Congress devote all it's time on shaky obstruction of justice possibilities.

[_Xenophon]

I guess this gets to heart of why I don't buy the russiagate hysteria some are trying to push. To me it really doesn't matter whether or not Russia or N. Korea or the devil himself gives us the truth. There wasn't any collusion found in any event and the $100,000 in Facebook ads didn't make people vote for Trump. Also, we need to move on. This gave Trump a gift on a "no collusion" meme that he will use through 2020. If we dwell too much on this, Trump could win a second term and that's what should be stopped. People want to have their pocketbook issues discussed and resolved and I don't they want these issues sacrificed by having Congress devote all it's time on shaky obstruction of justice possibilities.

I think the problem I see with you on this topic is that it feels like you've pre-judged it. You've had your mind set on this being a non-starter from just about day one and I'm uncertain if anything would convince you otherwise.

For me, it absolutely matters if "the truth" is distorted and presented in such away that causes a foreign powers favorite candidate to take an election. I also don't see you could have read the report and write what you do above. It was much more than $100,000 in ads, and it most certainly didn't give the gift of "no collusion", it draws quite a different conclusion actually. It was a direct call to Congress to act in the way the Constitution demands they should.

As has been discussed on the other thread, pursuing the responsibility Congress has to serve as a check on the Executive and discussing issues like climate change, debt reduction, healthcare or whatever other thing you think they should be focusing on are not mutually exclusive. Like others, I think it is a dubious to claim that impeachment hurts Democrats more than it helps them, especially given what was presented in the redacted report. Political calculus aside, we are on the verge of setting a potentially disastrous precedent. If not for Trump himself than for the next person that comes along willing to exploit the office but who is also smart enough to not be so obvious about it.

[_Dr Exiled]

I suspect pre-judgment infects a lot of people. What do you think of these articles? They give a counter story that isn't reliant on the fox news circus.

https://consortiumnews.com/2019/03/13/vips-muellers-forensics-free-findings/

https://www.thenation.com/article/rip-russiagate/

https://theintercept.com/2019/04/18/robert-mueller-did-not-merely-reject-the-trumprussia-conspiracy-theories-he-obliterated-them/

[_Some Schmo]

As soon as someone says, "The report shows there wasn't any collusion" I know a few things right away:

- They haven't read the report
- They don't understand the difference between "collusion" and "criminal conspiracy"
- They don't understand the legal standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt

Here's a beginning to an education: there can be some evidence of a crime, but not enough evidence to convict for that crime in a court of law. Let that marinate for a bit.

[Guest]

I suspect pre-judgment infects a lot of people. What do you think of these articles? They give a counter story that isn't reliant on the fox news circus.

https://consortiumnews.com/2019/03/13/vips-muellers-forensics-free-findings/

https://www.thenation.com/article/rip-russiagate/

https://theintercept.com/2019/04/18/robert-mueller-did-not-merely-reject-the-trumprussia-conspiracy-theories-he-obliterated-them/

You're obviously correct that we can all have pre-judgement issues. Hopefully you didn't read any ill-intent in my comment, none was intended. I generally think you're willing to shift positions, from what I've read from you, I just take this topic as one you're pretty set on.

To your first link, it is an interesting piece, I've read arguments similar in nature before. For me, it comes down to the idea of taking the findings of those involved first hand, especially those with unfettered access to the evidence. You'll forgive me if I don't find VIPS take on the matter to be definitive enough to undo the rest of Mueller and the Intelligence Community's findings. Although I respect the perspective of formal intelligence officials, there are some big names on that list, it doesn't outweigh the differing take from the people holding literally the same jobs that those guys once sat in. I would have to believe in either the complete incompetence of the investigative team and US Intelligence Agencies or believe in a complex and wide-ranging conspiracy against Donald Trump. Neither of those narratives seem convincing given the information available. To call back to your earlier point, Assange is about the only person that I think could prove it wasn't Russia. But so far has not done so. Guess we will wait and see on that one.

Your second link was written before we had the full report and appears to be based on Barr's assessment of the report... we now know that was inaccurate.

Your third focuses heavily on collusion, a point that is fine to tackle but that I think is not really the topic at hand here. It totally ignores that the report does finger GRU for the hacking.

[_Dr Exiled]

It marinated a bit .... anyway, Glen Greenwald used to be a practicing lawyer, read the report, and pointed out, step by step how the report found no evidence of collusion. Sure, the house can impeach. It only takes a simple majority to do so. Will there be a conviction? Probably not. But it'll make some good t.v.