What will/did Mueller say?

The Off-Topic forum for anything non-LDS related, such as sports or politics. Rated PG through PG-13.
Post Reply
_subgenius
_Emeritus
Posts: 13326
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2011 12:50 pm

Re: What will/did Mueller say?

Post by _subgenius »

canpakes wrote:Figured as much. ; )

Rep. Zoe Lofgren, a senior Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, asked Mueller at his hearing on Wednesday if the Russian government “perceived it would benefit from one of the candidates winning.”

Mueller confirmed that they did.

“Which candidate would that be?” Lofgren asked.

“Well, it would be Trump,” Mueller said.

oh well then, please share with the class what benefit(s) the Russians are currently enjoying...or perceiving they are enjoying.
Seek freedom and become captive of your desires...seek discipline and find your liberty
I can tell if a person is judgmental just by looking at them
what is chaos to the fly is normal to the spider - morticia addams
If you're not upsetting idiots, you might be an idiot. - Ted Nugent
_canpakes
_Emeritus
Posts: 8541
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2011 6:54 am

Re: What will/did Mueller say?

Post by _canpakes »

subgenius wrote:oh well then, please share with the class what benefit(s) the Russians are currently enjoying...or perceiving they are enjoying.

Just look in a mirror, comrade. : )
_Kevin Graham
_Emeritus
Posts: 13037
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 6:44 pm

Re: What will/did Mueller say?

Post by _Kevin Graham »

Uh, the analogy is perfectly appropriate because Mueller said Trump CANNOT BE INDICTED PERIOD. He didn't say only for some crimes. Your problem is that you never read the report but insist on going by the talking points of the report provided to you by idiots on FOX Noise. But you ignore your preferred network's most credible legal expert who basically agrees with everything I've said. That's why you keep ignoring those points he raised. You're just dumb and dishonest.
_honorentheos
_Emeritus
Posts: 11104
Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2010 5:17 am

Re: What will/did Mueller say?

Post by _honorentheos »

Res Ipsa wrote:
honorentheos wrote:The news aggregator RealClearPolitics had the following first four headlines following Mueller's testimony:

"Mueller Testimony a Complete Disaster for Democrats" - The Federalist
"Republicans Misfire During Mueller Hearing" - The Atlantic
"Confused Mueller Raises Investigation Questions" - Washington Examiner
"Mueller Reminds the Public: Trump Betrayed the U.S." - Mother Jones

Take from that what you will.


That’s a perfect recap, Honor.

It was certainly bemusing to see.
The world is always full of the sound of waves..but who knows the heart of the sea, a hundred feet down? Who knows it's depth?
~ Eiji Yoshikawa
_honorentheos
_Emeritus
Posts: 11104
Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2010 5:17 am

Re: What will/did Mueller say?

Post by _honorentheos »

If the episode decided anything for me, it was that impeachment proceeding would probably not be in the nation's interest. While I did, and do, think the House should have initiated them following the release of the report as I was persuaded by Kevin the fiasco of yesterday made it clear it would not be able to rise to the level of need but instead be mired in political theater. Perhaps had the House initiated impeachment proceedings and demanded Mueller answer questions related to the accusations against Trump rather than defer to his report per directive of the DOJ it would have played out differently. But that's something we will now never know. Leaving it in limbo hoping Mueller would make the case so they didn't have to and hope to claim they were now compelled to do so was an own goal, unfortunately.

The issue isn't that the House couldn't bring a valid case. It's that the House that tried to use Mueller as political cover probably isn't up to the task to use the proceedings to bring clarity and justice, which could lead to some necessary healing and refocus against future Russian interference and internal corruption.
The world is always full of the sound of waves..but who knows the heart of the sea, a hundred feet down? Who knows it's depth?
~ Eiji Yoshikawa
_Kevin Graham
_Emeritus
Posts: 13037
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 6:44 pm

Re: What will/did Mueller say?

Post by _Kevin Graham »

honorentheos wrote:If the episode decided anything for me, it was that impeachment proceeding would probably not be in the nation's interest. While I did, and do, think the House should have initiated them following the release of the report as I was persuaded by Kevin the fiasco of yesterday made it clear it would not be able to rise to the level of need but instead be mired in political theater. Perhaps had the House initiated impeachment proceedings and demanded Mueller answer questions related to the accusations against Trump rather than defer to his report per directive of the DOJ it would have played out differently. But that's something we will now never know. Leaving it in limbo hoping Mueller would make the case so they didn't have to and hope to claim they were now compelled to do so was an own goal, unfortunately.

The issue isn't that the House couldn't bring a valid case. It's that the House that tried to use Mueller as political cover probably isn't up to the task to use the proceedings to bring clarity and justice, which could lead to some necessary healing and refocus against future Russian interference and internal corruption.


I think you're misunderstanding why they called him to testify in the first place. I keep hearing in the media things like "Democrats disappointed" and things of that nature, but the fact is we've known for many weeks now that Mueller wasn't likely going to provide any new information. More House Democrats have jumped on the impeachment bandwagon since his testimony.

The fact is most Americans, and I'd venture to guess more than 95%, have never bothered to read the Mueller report. That's because most Americans are conditioned to have news fed to them via TV and social media. At least with the hearing, we have video footage of Mueller clearly contradicting a number of Trump's important but false claims.

Trump: Total exoneration
Mueller: No exoneration

Trump: Total Witch Hunt
Mueller: Not a Witch Hunt

Trump: Total Hoax
Mueller: Not a Hoax

Trump: Report said no obstruction
Mueller: That's not what the report said

Trump: Report said no collusion
Mueller: We did not address collusion

Trump: No evidence of conspiracy
Mueller: Evidence for conspiracy existed, but not sufficient to charge any member of the campaign (probably because too many people refused to cooperate).

Trump: I cooperated completely with the investigation
Mueller: The President repeatedly lied to the Special Counsel

Trump: Russia wanted Hillary to win
Mueller: Russia wanted Trump to win

Trump: We didn't want Russia's help
Mueller: Trump campaign welcomed Russia's help

Trump: Russia didn't attack our democracy
Mueller: Russia most definitely did and still is

Trump: Mueller is mad because he applied for the AG position
Mueller: I never applied for that position

We could probably add to this list many other examples of Mueller contradicting Trump's claims.

One thing I thing the Democrats failed to hit on during the hearing is the extent to which Trump's campaign effectively hindered the investigation by lying, withholding evidence, destroying evidence and witness intimidation.A huge win would have been to have Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez pound home the points outlined in VOlume I page 10.

Mueller Report Volume I page 10.

The investigation established that several individuals affiliated with the Trump Campaign lied to the Office, and to Congress, about their interactions with Russian-affiliated individuals and related matters. Those lies materially impaired the investigation of Russian election interference...

The investigation did not always yield admissible information or testimony, or a complete picture of the activities undertaken by subjects of the investigation. Some individuals invoked their Fifth Amendment right against compelled self-incrimination and were not, in the Office's judgment, appropriate candidates for grants of immunity. The Office limited its pursuit of other witnesses and information-such as information known to attorneys or individuals claiming to be members of the media-in light of internal Department of Justice policies. See, e.g., Justice Manual§§ 9-13.400, 13.410. Some of the information obtained via court process, moreover, was presumptively covered by legal privilege and was screened from investigators by a filter ( or "taint") team. Even when individuals testified or agreed to be interviewed, they sometimes provided information that was false or incomplete, leading to some of the false-statements charges described above. And the Office faced practical limits on its ability to access relevant evidence as well-numerous witnesses and subjects lived abroad, and documents were held outside the United States.

Further, the Office learned that some of the individuals we interviewed or whose conduct we investigated-including some associated with the Trump Campaign-deleted relevant communications or communicated during the relevant period using applications that feature encryption or that do not provide for long-term retention of data or communications records. In such cases, the Office was not able to corroborate witness statements through comparison to contemporaneous communications or fully question witnesses about statements that appeared inconsistent with other known facts. Accordingly, while this report embodies factual and legal determinations that the Office believes to be accurate and complete to the greatest extent possible, given these identified gaps, the Office cannot rule out the possibility that the unavailable information would shed additional light on (or cast in a new light) the events described in the report.


This basically says that the Mueller investigation may have easily come to very different conclusions on Conspiracy had the Trump campaign fully cooperated. The fact that they were constantly lying and hiding evidence ..... sigh. Could you imagine Obama or Hillary engaged in something like this?
_subgenius
_Emeritus
Posts: 13326
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2011 12:50 pm

Re: What will/did Mueller say?

Post by _subgenius »

Kevin Graham wrote:...The fact is most Americans, and I'd venture to guess more than 95%, have never bothered to read the Mueller report. ...

and given your multi-post butt-hurt hair-fire tirades, its clear that you also did not read the report and waited for the movie...which was a flop.
Seek freedom and become captive of your desires...seek discipline and find your liberty
I can tell if a person is judgmental just by looking at them
what is chaos to the fly is normal to the spider - morticia addams
If you're not upsetting idiots, you might be an idiot. - Ted Nugent
_Kevin Graham
_Emeritus
Posts: 13037
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 6:44 pm

Re: What will/did Mueller say?

Post by _Kevin Graham »

You can't even try to be original? Just going to repeat the FOX News talking points in quips? I've been commenting on the report since it was released, you've been doing your "I'm the biggest idiot in the room" skit ever since.
_Kevin Graham
_Emeritus
Posts: 13037
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 6:44 pm

Re: What will/did Mueller say?

Post by _Kevin Graham »

honorentheos wrote:If the episode decided anything for me, it was that impeachment proceeding would probably not be in the nation's interest. While I did, and do, think the House should have initiated them following the release of the report as I was persuaded by Kevin the fiasco of yesterday made it clear it would not be able to rise to the level of need but instead be mired in political theater. Perhaps had the House initiated impeachment proceedings and demanded Mueller answer questions related to the accusations against Trump rather than defer to his report per directive of the DOJ it would have played out differently. But that's something we will now never know. Leaving it in limbo hoping Mueller would make the case so they didn't have to and hope to claim they were now compelled to do so was an own goal, unfortunately.

The issue isn't that the House couldn't bring a valid case. It's that the House that tried to use Mueller as political cover probably isn't up to the task to use the proceedings to bring clarity and justice, which could lead to some necessary healing and refocus against future Russian interference and internal corruption.



You should really watch this to better understand what the Democrats were doing by calling Mueller to testify:

Schiff humiliates Meghan McCain over Mueller on national TV
_Kevin Graham
_Emeritus
Posts: 13037
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 6:44 pm

Re: What will/did Mueller say?

Post by _Kevin Graham »

The biggest takeaway from the Mueller testimony isn't that we learned nothing new, because we did.

Seth Abramson did a great job outlining them:

1. A VAST TRUMP-RUSSIA COUNTERINTELLIGENCE PROBE IS ONGOING. It's exponentially broader than Mueller's probe, it covers "collusion" (a fair term in the counterintelligence sphere) and its findings are being kept from America *and* Congress. The fight to see them began yesterday.

2. FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT CAN'T CONFIRM Trump ISN'T COMPROMISED BY RUSSIA. Because "compromise" is a counterintelligence issue, and compromised politicians are national security threats, and no one has seen any FBI counterintelligence report, we don't know if Trump is a threat.

3. MUELLER DIDN'T INVESTIGATE ANYTHING Trump WAS ACCUSED OF BESIDES OBSTRUCTION. The non-obstruction allegations against Trump were aiding/abetting, bribery, money laundering, and illegal pre-election receipt of in-kind donations from non-Russians. Mueller looked at none of that.

4. THERE IS SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE Trump AIDED AND ABETTED COMPUTER CRIMES. Mueller testified—under oath—that Trump gave "hope" and a "boost" to WikiLeaks' "criminal activity" after he knew such activity was afoot. The crime that describes—aiding/abetting—must now be investigated.

5. THERE IS SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE Trump COMMITTED THE FEDERAL FELONY OF MAKING FALSE STATEMENTS TO LAW ENFORCEMENT. Mueller testified—under oath—that Trump's written answers to the FBI and the Special Counsel were "generally" *untruthful*, as the facts in Mueller's report confirm.

6. Trump AND GOP CLAIMS OF "NO COLLUSION," "NO OBSTRUCTION," AND "NO EVIDENCE OF CONSPIRACY OR COORDINATION" ARE ALL FALSE. It isn't news to anyone paying attention, but as much of America isn't, many learned for the first time from Mueller that these GOP talking points are lies.

7. MUELLER SAID Trump COULD BE CHARGED WITH OBSTRUCTION POST-PRESIDENCY AND WOULD HAVE BEEN CHARGED NOW IF NOT FOR THE OLC. Mueller's later (confusing) "walk-back" of the second claim—which many had taken as an accidental truth—didn't erase the specter that he meant what he said.

8. ANY Trump CRIMES INVOLVING OTHER NATIONS ARE STILL UNREPORTED. Mueller's testimony made clear that evidence involving nations besides Russia—whether past election interference or future election interference, past collusion or future collusion—went to FBI counterintelligence.

9. REPUBLICANS HAVE NO OBJECTIONS TO ANY OF THE DAMNING FACTS IN THE MUELLER REPORT. Media waited with baited breath for Republicans to contest the Report's damning findings rather than just opine about what else Mueller could have looked at—and shockingly, the moment never came.

10. MUELLER ONLY CHOSE NOT TO INTERVIEW Trump FACE-TO-FACE BECAUSE HE ADJUDGED HE HAD ENOUGH EVIDENCE OF "CORRUPT INTENT" ON OBSTRUCTION. Mueller resolved a *longstanding* mystery: why didn't he insist on keeping Trump to his public promise of a live interview? Well, now we know.

11. Trump WITNESSES "IMPEDED" THE MUELLER INVESTIGATION. Mueller testified under oath—in answers to questions by Rep. Demings—that contrary to Trump and GOP claims that the White House facilitated campaign aides assisting Mueller, the opposite was true: they tried to stop him.

12. MUELLER BELIEVES Trump AND HIS AIDES OPENED THEMSELVES TO KREMLIN BLACKMAIL. Mueller told Rep. Correa he "doesn't disagree" that a series of acts answering to behavior by Trump and his aides would be sufficient to give the Kremlin leverage and blackmail material over them.

13. MUELLER SAYS NOT REPORTING FOREIGN AID OFFERS IN A CAMPAIGN CAN BE A CRIME. Trump says it isn't; the GOP is today fighting as hard as they can not to legislate on it—as they think Trump will do (may already have done) it—but Mueller told Rep. Himes it can be a crime *now*.

14. Trump AND THE GOP SAY NEITHER MUELLER NOR BARR CAN "EXONERATE" Trump ON OBSTRUCTION. One of yesterday's oddest moments came when *multiple* Republicans said no one at DOJ can exonerate Trump on obstruction—meaning Mueller's report is definitionally an impeachment referral.

15. Trump'S CAMPAIGN MANAGER PAUL MANAFORT SPENT THE WHOLE CAMPAIGN EXPECTING TO RECEIVE FINANCIAL COMPENSATION (NOT JUST LOAN FORGIVENESS) FROM THE KREMLIN FOR HIS STEWARDSHIP OF Trump. Many thought this shocking fact was discussed at length in Mueller's report—but it wasn't.

16. Mueller also refused to say there was "no evidence" Manafort met with Assange; refused to say there was no evidence Trump's campaign was involved in the theft of Hillary Clinton/DNC emails; rejected the "hoax" and "witch hunt" slurs; and said Putin could have compromising tapes of Cohen.

Now if you consider more than a dozen new facts that were otherwise unknown, it becomes clear this was a very productive hearing for those seeking impeachment. The problem is too many people on both sides of the media had turned this into something it was never intended to be. From listening to the commentators you'd think the expectation from the Democrats was to trick Mueller into saying flat out, "Trump should be impeached because he's a criminal" or something along those lines. But that was never the intent or expectation.

It is just crazy to me how so much evidence can be against Trump and yet idiots like substupid are out there blowing smoke and waving mirrors at all costs. Could you imagine, for example, if the investigation into Benghazi determined that no conclusions could be reached regarding Hillary Clinton's criminality because she and her staff were impeding the investigation by lying and obstructing?

Meanwhile, The 5 Biggest Lies Republicans Told at Mueller’s Hearing
Post Reply