• Civilization 7 has been announced. For more info please check the forum here .

Postmortem on Mueller

I agree that the Democrats have to go through with impeachment as a matter of principal at this point. The fabric of the country is being torn apart and they should not go quietly into the night, to steal a line from a poem. Just because it will fail in the Senate or may hurt Dems in the election are not sufficient reasons to let our Democracy be assaulted without recourse like this.
 
I see you didn't take me up on my offer to suggest corrections to my time line after trashing it for being "Swiss cheese".
You were only citing Democratic talking points so there are a lot of holes.

As AG Barr said, stories don't hang together. Australia did not confirm the Papdopoulos story, for example. The first page of the Mueller report states that the FBI opened an investigation on 31 July 2016. This is incorrect. That is the date that operation Crosssire Hurricane was launched but the investigation was already in process by then. It is widely reported, see eg below, that Papadopoulos was recruited in a CIA-style sting to give a pretext for the counter-intelligence investigation. This why AG Barr tasked USA Durham to find out who started what, when and for what purpose.
https://news.yahoo.com/fbi-trump-russia-investigation-formally-103028298.html

Perhaps a little accountability is coming. Who knew?

I agree that the Democrats have to go through with impeachment as a matter of principal at this point. The fabric of the country is being torn apart and they should not go quietly into the night, to steal a line from a poem. Just because it will fail in the Senate or may hurt Dems in the election are not sufficient reasons to let our Democracy be assaulted without recourse like this.
The Democrats literally cannot afford to impeach. Even scheduling debate would be lethal because that would bring Mueller's team, tactics, and evidence under cross question. Prosecutorial misconduct is just the starting point. It will be fair game to compare the treatment Hillary Clinton received to the treatment Trump received. And this is just in the House where Democrats hold a majority. The Senate is worse.

The problem is that the Democrats promised their people a coup and they cannot deliver. The bill is coming due in 17 months and Trump has his turn at bat first.

J
 
Last edited:
I'm surprised at Mueller, that article doesn't help his image and makes the picture even more confusing. Recently I find myself having to rely on news outlets aligned more or less with the GOP to find this stuff out. Two years of MSNBC has rotted my brain like that lady who didn't know the Mueller report said bad things about Trump.
 
I'm surprised at Mueller, that article doesn't help his image and makes the picture even more confusing. Recently I find myself having to rely on news outlets aligned more or less with the GOP to find this stuff out. Two years of MSNBC has rotted my brain like that lady who didn't know the Mueller report said bad things about Trump.
If you think the Democrats fear cross examination, Mueller does in spades.

IMO he lost control of the process early on but remains as titular head. The methods, the prosecutorial misconduct, and especially the report are all very much what we would expect from Andrew Weissmann. There are even rumors that Weissmann did the hiring, which would explain Strzok's presence. Both should have been recused for conflict of interest.

J
 
You were only citing Democratic talking points so there are a lot of holes.

As AG Barr said, stories don't hang together. Australia did not confirm the Papdopoulos story, for example. The first page of the Mueller report states that the FBI opened an investigation on 31 July 2016. This is incorrect. That is the date that operation Crosssire Hurricane was launched but the investigation was already in process by then. It is widely reported, see eg below, that Papadopoulos was recruited in a CIA-style sting to give a pretext for the counter-intelligence investigation. This why AG Barr tasked USA Durham to find out who started what, when and for what purpose.
https://news.yahoo.com/fbi-trump-russia-investigation-formally-103028298.html

Perhaps a little accountability is coming. Who knew?


The Democrats literally cannot afford to impeach. Even scheduling debate would be lethal because that would bring Mueller's team, tactics, and evidence under cross question. Prosecutorial misconduct is just the starting point. It will be fair game to compare the treatment Hillary Clinton received to the treatment Trump received. And this is just in the House where Democrats hold a majority. The Senate is worse.

The problem is that the Democrats promised their people a coup and they cannot deliver. The bill is coming due in 17 months and Trump has his turn at bat first.

J

3) Papadopoulos says the emails he claims Mifsud referred to were not the DNC emails; they were Clinton’s own emails. That is, when Papadopoulos claims that Mifsud told him that Russia had “dirt” in the form of “thousands” of “emails of Clinton,” he understood Mifsud to be alluding to the thousands of State Department and Clinton Foundation emails that Clinton had stored on a private server. These, of course, were the emails that were being intensively covered in the media (including speculation that they might have been hacked by hostile foreign intelligence services) at the time Mifsud and Papadopoulos spoke – i.e., April 2016, when neither Mifsud nor Papadopoulos had any basis to know anything about hacked DNC emails.

4) The DNC emails did not damage Clinton in any material way, and it would have been ridiculous to imagine that they would. They were not Clinton’s emails and she was not a correspondent in them. The emails embarrassed the DNC by showing that the national party favored Clinton over Bernie Sanders. But Clinton was already the certain nominee; nothing in the emails threatened that outcome or set her back in the race against Donald Trump.

Not that I should have bothered reading an article by such a political hack as McCarthy(at this point in history anyways), but his two premises here are stupid along with his main point being hopelessly naive.

3) Just because the people who thought they were talking about something got lost in translation so to speak doesn't clear either of them.
4) Quite the contrary those emails were extremely damaging to the Clinton campaign because it meant even more Bernie supporters stayed home in protest.

Finally and this is the point you guys keep blowing over because it exposes your hypocrisy so badly you can;t be self aware of it or it would tear this whole conspiracy theory apart. The premise this whole case was a thinly built political attack. If this was all on the other foot there would be complete Fox News meltdowns if the FBI and CIA didn't dig into it vigorously. Making the case for moving forward with an investigation is a far cry from indicting people and this case is a good textbook instrument for why that is, but that in no way means it was not prudent to move forward with such an investigation. Of course all this ignores the fact that Mueller was investigating Russian interference in general as well, which of course was obviously the case to anyone with eyes.

This whole post is largely absurd, but lets focus on that coup part. Impeachment is not a coup. You keep using that word though. . .
 
I'm surprised at Mueller, that article doesn't help his image and makes the picture even more confusing. Recently I find myself having to rely on news outlets aligned more or less with the GOP to find this stuff out. Two years of MSNBC has rotted my brain like that lady who didn't know the Mueller report said bad things about Trump.

The article is a hit piece by a Trump sycophant of the highest order. Its full of obfuscation of the worst order and is complete nonsense. The Naional review is still completely trying to shift into Trump support so it can remain relevant in the Trumpican Party.
 
The article is a hit piece by a Trump sycophant of the highest order. Its full of obfuscation of the worst order and is complete nonsense. The Naional review is still completely trying to shift into Trump support so it can remain relevant in the Trumpican Party.
Yeah. I used to find Rich Lowry's (editor at National Review) articles in Politico interesting for an alternate perspective outside of my media 'bubble' but increasingly it is just divorced from reality.

Lawfare had an interesting article on Barr's decision to open an investigation into the investigation. Based on this article, and Barr's other actions, it seems Barr is trying to play both sides - borrow Trumptard talking drooling points but not doing anything outside of what any conservative AG would do.

Lawfare said:
Barr makes a strong case on the need for an investigation of the investigators. I say this as someone who believes firmly that the FBI did the right thing in opening up the investigation of Russian contacts with the Trump campaign, and also as someone who has not yet seen any evidence of wrongdoing in the opening of the investigation or in the Carter Page FISA application. The reason why an investigation is needed, however, is that—due to no fault of the investigators—the Trump campaign investigation was unprecedented and politically fraught in ways that go to the core of long-held concerns about the impact of secret government surveillance on our democracy. The country needs to know how it went so it can have confidence that the invariably fraught power exercised by the FBI was not abused, and also so the FBI can learn how to approach these problems better in the future.
...
It is very hard to read this passage in a way that is charitable to Barr. It is one thing for an attorney general not to go out of his way to criticize the president for whom he works, even when asked. I get that. But here Barr goes out of his way, without being asked, to announce that he’s not troubled by Trump’s behavior and doesn’t think the president’s actions and comments harm American institutions. This comment makes it hard to take seriously Barr’s concerns about norms violations and harm to institutions, and will, like his insinuations, color his investigation no matter how fairly Durham conducts it.
...
Barr’s insinuations in his interview were wrong. This is no justification for what he did, but Barr may in part have been reacting to various types of norm-breaking by former officials, and to very personal attacks by former officials. An example of the latter is Comey’s May 1 op-ed, which unbecomingly attributed Barr’s and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein’s actions to a “lack of inner strength” and to having had their “souls” eaten by Trump—rather than addressing their actions, at least some of which were quite defensible, on the merits. Comey, in turn, has many very good reasons to be furious with the president and his administration due to their numerous unfair attacks on him, and due to Barr’s fact-free insinuations about him. The Trump administration, in turn, has reason to be furious with Comey over his leaked memos. It also has reason to be angry about the Strzok and Page messages, the leakers of foreign intelligence information who aimed to harm the president, and the exaggerated claims by several former intelligence officials about Trump’s complicity in the 2016 Russia operation. And the leakers and former-officials-turned-pundits, in turn, felt justified in (respectively) leaking in unprecedented ways, and in entering the political fray against the president, all due to Trump’s persistently outlandish, norm-breaking (to put it mildly) behavior.
https://www.lawfareblog.com/good-bad-and-ugly-attorney-generals-cbs-interview
 
They saw how the Weekly Standard died after taking an anti-Trump stance and made adjustments.

Yea pretty much nailed it hobbs, their insiders who were let go basically said as much.
 
4) Quite the contrary those emails were extremely damaging to the Clinton campaign because it meant even more Bernie supporters stayed home in protest.

I agree with that, same thing crossed my mind when I read it

Finally and this is the point you guys keep blowing over because it exposes your hypocrisy so badly you can;t be self aware of it or it would tear this whole conspiracy theory apart. The premise this whole case was a thinly built political attack. If this was all on the other foot there would be complete Fox News meltdowns if the FBI and CIA didn't dig into it vigorously. Making the case for moving forward with an investigation is a far cry from indicting people and this case is a good textbook instrument for why that is, but that in no way means it was not prudent to move forward with such an investigation. Of course all this ignores the fact that Mueller was investigating Russian interference in general as well, which of course was obviously the case to anyone with eyes.

You're accusing us of hypocrisy based on what Fox News would do? They went forward because pro-Clinton people sent lies about Trump to pro-Clinton people at the Obama DoJ before the election. Some of those people got fired or sued and Mueller was late to the investigation.
 
I agree with that, same thing crossed my mind when I read it



You're accusing us of hypocrisy based on what Fox News would do? They went forward because pro-Clinton people sent lies about Trump to pro-Clinton people at the Obama DoJ before the election. Some of those people got fired or sued and Mueller was late to the investigation.

Yea, I am. Considering Trump's past financial connections to Russians this wasn't too big of a stretch. I mean the NY investigation still might find Trump related money laundering for goodness sake.

Furthermore goose/gander on the other foot thing. I expected an investigation into the investigation decision here and welcome that too. I would expect if Trump officials started a counter intelligence investigation on Warren or Sanders under similar conditions that Democrats would want that looked into as well. Of course there was a moment in which this all could have been bipartisan. . .but McConnell (the man who with Gingrich might just own the foundations of a second civil war consider their contributions towards partisanship).
 
Last edited:
Finally and this is the point you guys keep blowing over because it exposes your hypocrisy so badly you can;t be self aware of it or it would tear this whole conspiracy theory apart. [snip] If this was all on the other foot there would be complete Fox News meltdowns if the FBI and CIA didn't dig into it vigorously. Making the case for moving forward with an investigation is a far cry from indicting people and this case is a good textbook instrument for why that is, but that in no way means it was not prudent to move forward with such an investigation. Of course all this ignores the fact that Mueller was investigating Russian interference in general as well, which of course was obviously the case to anyone with eyes.

This whole post is largely absurd, but lets focus on that coup part. Impeachment is not a coup. You keep using that word though. . .
''Finally and this is the point you guys keep blowing over because it exposes your hypocrisy so badly ''
'' If this was all on the other foot there would be complete Fox News meltdowns if the FBI and CIA didn't dig into it vigorously.''

The shoe is on the other foot... Fox has been in meltdown since before the 2016 election... now Barr is in the process of declassifying all relevant documents ... Schiff is demanding all security agencies send him copies of all documents... and here is the important part... before they are declassified by Barr ... so now you have two people 'leaky' SCHIFF and ex CIA official john Brennan demanding that the federal agencies give Schiff classified documents OR withhold them ... for reasons.. before they are declassified... now these are the same two guys who were amongst the strongest voices calling for the release of Grand Jury information (which is illegal) in the Mueller report. Now they are amongst the strongest critics of Barr declassifying all documents in the Russia interference...they are politicising the intelligence communities ''which of course was obviously the case to anyone with eyes''.
Schiff sent letters to agency heads requesting “all documents, material, or information” provided or made available to Barr as part of his review.

Read the letter to Director of National Intelligence Daniel Coats (identical letters were sent to FBI Director Christopher Wray, CIA Director Gina Haspel and National Security Agency Director Paul Nakasone)


John Brennan is in such meltdown because that when asked to hand in his security clearance last year... seems to have forgotten it was not followed up on...anyone that has a security clearance can be spied on legally ... using the full force of the US intelligence services... including all NSA capabilities ( they have records of all his texts emails and phone calls for the last 15 years)... maybe he does not watch Fox news ... just saying...
 
'

Read the letter to Director of National Intelligence Daniel Coats (identical letters were sent to FBI Director Christopher Wray, CIA Director Gina Haspel and National Security Agency Director Paul Nakasone)


John Brennan is in such meltdown because that when asked to hand in his security clearance last year... seems to have forgotten it was not followed up on...anyone that has a security clearance can be spied on legally ... using the full force of the US intelligence services... including all NSA capabilities ( they have records of all his texts emails and phone calls for the last 15 years)... maybe he does not watch Fox news ... just saying...

The letter looks like legit oversight from congress considering that the point of Barr's being let loose as a guard dog for the president is to selectively release information that makes Trump look good and his accusers look bad.

Your comment on Brennan isn't coherent and conspiracy minded to the max (nor surprising considering your heroes)
 
3) Papadopoulos says the emails he claims Mifsud referred to were not the DNC emails; they were Clinton’s own emails. That is, when Papadopoulos claims that Mifsud told him that Russia had “dirt” in the form of “thousands” of “emails of Clinton,” he understood Mifsud to be alluding to the thousands of State Department and Clinton Foundation emails that Clinton had stored on a private server. These, of course, were the emails that were being intensively covered in the media (including speculation that they might have been hacked by hostile foreign intelligence services) at the time Mifsud and Papadopoulos spoke – i.e., April 2016, when neither Mifsud nor Papadopoulos had any basis to know anything about hacked DNC emails.

4) The DNC emails did not damage Clinton in any material way, and it would have been ridiculous to imagine that they would. They were not Clinton’s emails and she was not a correspondent in them. The emails embarrassed the DNC by showing that the national party favored Clinton over Bernie Sanders. But Clinton was already the certain nominee; nothing in the emails threatened that outcome or set her back in the race against Donald Trump.

Not that I should have bothered reading an article by such a political hack as McCarthy(at this point in history anyways), but his two premises here are stupid along with his main point being hopelessly naive.

3) Just because the people who thought they were talking about something got lost in translation so to speak doesn't clear either of them.
4) Quite the contrary those emails were extremely damaging to the Clinton campaign because it meant even more Bernie supporters stayed home in protest.

Finally and this is the point you guys keep blowing over because it exposes your hypocrisy so badly you can;t be self aware of it or it would tear this whole conspiracy theory apart. The premise this whole case was a thinly built political attack. If this was all on the other foot there would be complete Fox News meltdowns if the FBI and CIA didn't dig into it vigorously. Making the case for moving forward with an investigation is a far cry from indicting people and this case is a good textbook instrument for why that is, but that in no way means it was not prudent to move forward with such an investigation. Of course all this ignores the fact that Mueller was investigating Russian interference in general as well, which of course was obviously the case to anyone with eyes.

This whole post is largely absurd, but lets focus on that coup part. Impeachment is not a coup. You keep using that word though. . .
Coup is not my word, but neither is it inaccurate if what is alleged proves to be true. There are few things we hate more than corrupt legal process. Coup is the milder term.

I pose a hypothetical. Suppose that Trump was genuinely innocent, that there was a plot among a dozen or so very senior people from the Obama administration, that the intent of the plot was to drive Trump from office in such a way that Republicans as a party were disgraced. In short, suppose that there was an attempt to recreate Watergate. There is no shortage of people alleging exactly that. Suppose this was all laid out and proven. What would you do?

Ironically, such a plot would be a recreation of Watergate with the parties reversed. Oedipus anyone?

J
 
Last edited:
Yea, I am. Considering Trump's past financial connections to Russians this wasn't too big of a stretch. I mean the NY investigation still might find Trump related money laundering for goodness sake.

Furthermore goose/gander on the other foot thing. I expected an investigation into the investigation decision here and welcome that too. I would expect if Trump officials started a counter intelligence investigation on Warren or Sanders under similar conditions that Democrats would want that looked into as well. Of course there was a moment in which this all could have been bipartisan. . .but McConnell (the man who with Gingrich might just own the foundations of a second civil war consider their contributions towards partisanship).

Why do the actions of Fox News make posters here hypocrites? You're repeating an accusation and changing the subject instead of backing it up.
 
I saw this one yesterday and it brought a smile to my face

 
Why do the actions of Fox News make posters here hypocrites? You're repeating an accusation and changing the subject instead of backing it up.

Because a selection of posters here contrary to their claims basically spout Fox News taking points.
 
Coup is not my word, but neither is it inaccurate if what is alleged proves to be true. There are few things we hate more than corrupt legal process. Coup is the milder term.

I pose a hypothetical. Suppose that Trump was genuinely innocent, that there was a plot among a dozen or so very senior people from the Obama administration, that the intent of the plot was to drive Trump from office in such a way that Republicans as a party were disgraced. In short, suppose that there was an attempt to recreate Watergate. There is no shortage of people alleging exactly that. Suppose this was all laid out and proven. What would you do?

Ironically, such a plot would be a recreation of Watergate with the parties reversed. Oedipus anyone?

J

Well go ahead and use the more severe term J. Also the rest of this post is babbling. I’m not even sure what the point you are trying to make is honestly.
 
Because a selection of posters here contrary to their claims basically spout Fox News taking points.
not surprising when we have been waiting 2 years for CNN To ask a single question of Hillary about if she knew anything about the Steele Dossier... just one Question...
 
Top Bottom