Postmortem on Mueller

[Wastl]

That's a fairly broad spectrum of people to find indistinguishable.

You beg the question, could we trust President Obama to investigate Hillary Clinton? The answer is fairly clearly, no. The conspiracy theory is that the investigation of Trump was cooked up as camouflage for acquitting Hillary. Certainly there is much more concrete and undisputed evidence that Clinton broke various laws than that Page was a Russian spy. Without that pretext, there is nothing against Trump and the timing of it all is suspicious. Still, it's just a theory.

The bottom line is this. Will you trust the evidence or will you trust the dialogue? There was never any evidence against Kavanaugh, but enough people believe the dialogue that the vote was close. There was never any evidence against Trump and a two year investigation failed to find any. The evidence is clear but the dialogue says something else. The IG probe should wrap up soon. That is probably the next domino to fall.

J

LOL, the w2ay you twist reality is truly amazing. Both the FBI and Congress investigated Clinton for ages. The Republicans basically did nothing else (well, apart from bashing and lying about Obama) for years on end, for the sole purpose up ruining Clinton's name, because they knew she would be the likely opposition ion the 2016 election. They couldn't find anything to actually bring her to court for. Yet here you are, making absurd claims that there was "concrete and undisputed evidence" against her, while also claiming that there was none against Page or Trump, both of which are lies.

There was evidence against Kavanaugh, as much as there could be on such an old case and a "he said, she said" scenario. It's just that Republicans wouldn't have dropped him if their lives had depended on it. There was clear evidence against Trump's team, in fact, so much so that multiple of his people are going to jail for it. There was also a ton of evidence of Trump trying to obstruct justice, only that Mueller left that matter for congress to deal with, while Barr lied openly to congress about the matter and Republicans, once again, never would have acted regardless of what would have come out of it.

So yes, the evidence is quite clear, yet you ignore it and present some alternative "evidence" which has nothing to do with the actual one. You are all talk, and you never have anything to actually back up your claims, only random nonsense that distorts reality in a ridiculous fashion. With people like you, it is no wonder that democracy is threatened in many places and people like McConnell can destroy core foundations of the Republic.

 

[Estebonrober]

That's a fairly broad spectrum of people to find indistinguishable.

You beg the question, could we trust President Obama to investigate Hillary Clinton? The answer is fairly clearly, no. The conspiracy theory is that the investigation of Trump was cooked up as camouflage for acquitting Hillary. Certainly there is much more concrete and undisputed evidence that Clinton broke various laws than that Page was a Russian spy. Without that pretext, there is nothing against Trump and the timing of it all is suspicious. Still, it's just a theory.

The bottom line is this. Will you trust the evidence or will you trust the dialogue? There was never any evidence against Kavanaugh, but enough people believe the dialogue that the vote was close. There was never any evidence against Trump and a two year investigation failed to find any. The evidence is clear but the dialogue says something else. The IG probe should wrap up soon. That is probably the next domino to fall.

J

Didn't congress (you know the rabid dog republican ones) have like 11 investigations into Clinton? Holder? I think there was someone else. There is no perfect solution for this, but Barr has lost all credibility. I'd imagine it is a lot like when Holder was held in contempt for Republicans. At that point Holder had lost cred.

The Clinton conspiracy is stupid like all the rest of them about the Clintons and like most conspiracies in general.

I look forward to the IG report, may it be truthful and thorough. If it is a bunch of mud slinging garbage with no solid evidence behind it, well then that will be a shame.

 

[onejayhawk]

LOL, the w2ay you twist reality is truly amazing. Both the FBI and Congress investigated Clinton for ages. The Republicans basically did nothing else (well, apart from bashing and lying about Obama) for years on end, for the sole purpose up ruining Clinton's name, because they knew she would be the likely opposition ion the 2016 election. They couldn't find anything to actually bring her to court for. Yet here you are, making absurd claims that there was "concrete and undisputed evidence" against her, while also claiming that there was none against Page or Trump, both of which are lies.

There was evidence against Kavanaugh, as much as there could be on such an old case and a "he said, she said" scenario. It's just that Republicans wouldn't have dropped him if their lives had depended on it. There was clear evidence against Trump's team, in fact, so much so that multiple of his people are going to jail for it. There was also a ton of evidence of Trump trying to obstruct justice, only that Mueller left that matter for congress to deal with, while Barr lied openly to congress about the matter and Republicans, once again, never would have acted regardless of what would have come out of it.

So yes, the evidence is quite clear, yet you ignore it and present some alternative "evidence" which has nothing to do with the actual one. You are all talk, and you never have anything to actually back up your claims, only random nonsense that distorts reality in a ridiculous fashion. With people like you, it is no wonder that democracy is threatened in many places and people like McConnell can destroy core foundations of the Republic.

I will grant that there were the motions of an investigation. However, Clinton was allowed to willfully destroy evidence on multiple occasions. That is not a true investigation.

Cite the evidence against Kavanaugh other than Blasey-Ford's testimony. That would not be enough for a search warrant, so I'm going with no evidence.

The evidence is clear. Mueller's report found no evidence of collusion. The main point is four words long. The whole report could have been done in 40 and those have to do with Russians.

J

 

[Zkribbler]

There was never any evidence against Kavanaugh,

There was the sworn testimony of the complaining witness. That alone is evidence. She begged the FBI to investigate. The GOP wouldn't allow it. She found a corroborating witness. The Committee refused to call her. It is the height of bad faith to bar an investigation into claims and then claim "no evidence."

There was never any evidence against Trump

For instances, there is the Trump Tower meeting, which the Trump side lied about happening, then lied that it was about adoptions, then lied that Trump himself didn't know about it, then lied that Trump's kid wrote the report when in fact Trump had. Maybe the Trump folks just like lying...or maybe they were covering up.

Trump has never said anything bad about Putin, even going so far as making excuses for Putin murdering political opponents. Trump insists on adopting Puti's verbal assurances and ignoring his own intelligence services. Trump is concealing his financial dealings with the Russians. Trump repeats RT talking points.

Mueller investigated, but his report is slathered in black ink. Why?

Trump hired an AG who, before being hired, opined that a {resident can never be prosecuted for obstruction of justice. Mueller then refused to opine on obstruction and referred the matter to the AG.

[/QUOTE]

 

[Birdjaguar]

I will grant that there were the motions of an investigation. However, Clinton was allowed to willfully destroy evidence on multiple occasions. That is not a true investigation.

J

So your contention is that 4 years of Republican investigation didn't succeed because HRC covered up her crimes Obama protected her?

 

[Estebonrober]

I will grant that there were the motions of an investigation. However, Clinton was allowed to willfully destroy evidence on multiple occasions. That is not a true investigation.

Cite the evidence against Kavanaugh other than Blasey-Ford's testimony. That would not be enough for a search warrant, so I'm going with no evidence.

The evidence is clear. Mueller's report found no evidence of collusion. The main point is four words long. The whole report could have been done in 40 and those have to do with Russians.

J

Collusion isn't a crime, you sound like a bad fox news radio host, its unbearable. They did not find enough evidence for conspiracy to indict Trump Jr. That's all the exoneration you got, I know its impossible for you to put yourself in the other sides shoes, but I could imagine what you'd be saying if this was all Obama campaign things. You guys wanted him removed from office from talking to a former terrorist and going to a certain church.

 

[Birdjaguar]

You guys wanted him removed from office from talking to a former terrorist and going to a certain church.

Wait wait wait. By using those standards Trump should be removed from office for brown nosing both Putin and Kimmy who are known terrorists and killers.

 

[Zkribbler]

You guys wanted [Obama].removed from office from talking to a former terrorist and going to a certain church.

And technically the guy wasn't even a terrorist because he never attacked civilians. Rather, he set off explosives in unoccupied government buildings to protest the Vietnam War.

 

[onejayhawk]

So your contention is that 4 years of Republican investigation didn't succeed because HRC covered up her crimes Obama protected her?

It is not like that is a new idea. It's just the direction the compass is pointing. How else do you reconcile the storming of Roger Stone's home, which added nothing noteworthy to the available evidence, with Hillary wiping Top Secret files with impunity. Having unsecured files is a felony and destroying them is a separate felony. Note that Peter Strzok ran the Clinton investigation.

What I am not sure I buy is that the two are joined at the hip, ie clear Clinton by framing Trump. That seems too pat given the amorphous nature of the whole affair. It is worth noting that none of the leveraged Trump subordinates flipped on him, while Comey, Clapper, and Brennan are pointing fingers. That is likely because Trump's people didn't have anything to sell, probably because Trump is genuinely innocent of everything that was alleged.

J

 

[Berzerker]

Collusion isn't a crime, you sound like a bad fox news radio host, its unbearable.

The anti-Trump media pushed "collusion" for over a year, thats why it gets brought up now.

 

[Estebonrober]

The anti-Trump media pushed "collusion" for over a year, thats why it gets brought up now.

Yea doubling down on ignorant terminology doesn't do us favors when trying to actually discuss this stuff beyond gotcha news cycles. I'm willing to be that most in this forum don't think too much of Fox News, CNN, or MSNBC.

 

[Berzerker]

Yea doubling down on ignorant terminology doesn't do us favors when trying to actually discuss this stuff beyond gotcha news cycles. I'm willing to be that most in this forum don't think too much of Fox News, CNN, or MSNBC.

It isn't doubling down, its refuting an accusation repeatedly made by the media. If you want to do us a favor, criticize the media for promoting that ignorant terminology in the first place, not the people who addressed it.

 

[onejayhawk]

Yea doubling down on ignorant terminology doesn't do us favors when trying to actually discuss this stuff beyond gotcha news cycles. I'm willing to be that most in this forum don't think too much of Fox News, CNN, or MSNBC.

You did the doubling down if we are being picky about such details.

Don't forget NYT and WP. Note the number of times the Mueller report uses circular logic by citing the NYT. The Times' articles sourced the FBI or DoJ. The snake eats its tail.

J

 

[Estebonrober]

It isn't doubling down, its refuting an accusation repeatedly made by the media. If you want to do us a favor, criticize the media for promoting that ignorant terminology in the first place, not the people who addressed it.

I just did.

You did the doubling down if we are being picky about such details.

Don't forget NYT and WP. Note the number of times the Mueller report uses circular logic by citing the NYT. The Times' articles sourced the FBI or DoJ. The snake eats its tail.

J

It is not worth the time to respond to this, it has been addressed many times by many others.

 

[onejayhawk]

It is not worth the time to respond to this, it has been addressed many times by many others.

It has not been addressed much less refuted. The whole concept of leaking information to generate a story is not new to the forum. The idea of then using the story to enhance a warrant application or pad a report is fresh. While it is a well known tactic, it is completely unethical and frequently illegal. In this case, the leak is a felony. It's something Andrew Weissmann did on the Enron case.

Speaking of Weissmann and Enron, he withheld exculpatory evidence which he was required to give to the Judge. He is also an avid Clinton supporter and donor. In a valid investigation, Weissmann would be barred. Instead there are reports he effective hand picked the team. Does anyone still want to claim the investigation was above board and used only valid investigative techniques?

J

 

[Estebonrober]

. Does anyone still want to claim the investigation was above board and used only valid investigative techniques?

J

I think most of us do until you actually come up with some actual impropriety beyond your own paranoia of the "deep state".

 

[cardgame]

It has not been addressed much less refuted. The whole concept of leaking information to generate a story is not new to the forum. The idea of then using the story to enhance a warrant application or pad a report is fresh. While it is a well known tactic, it is completely unethical and frequently illegal. In this case, the leak is a felony. It's something Andrew Weissmann did on the Enron case.

Speaking of Weissmann and Enron, he withheld exculpatory evidence which he was required to give to the Judge. He is also an avid Clinton supporter and donor. In a valid investigation, Weissmann would be barred. Instead there are reports he effective hand picked the team. Does anyone still want to claim the investigation was above board and used only valid investigative techniques?

J

Has anything you've ever posted in the past year not been refuted?

 

[onejayhawk]

I think most of us do until you actually come up with some actual impropriety beyond your own paranoia of the "deep state".

Has anything you've ever posted in the past year not been refuted?

Sure. Many things. For example, no one has even disputed that AG Barr used the word spy. In context, that is a very big deal and indirectly says that cheating is going on. In an interview for Fox, AG Barr used the phrase, a thumb on the scales. In an interview for WSJ Barr said this.

I felt the rules were being changed to hurt Trump, and I thought it was damaging for the presidency over the long haul. At every grave juncture the presidency has done what it is supposed to do, which is to provide leadership and direction. If you destroy the presidency and make it an errand boy for Congress, we’re going to be a much weaker and more divided nation.
​

The Journal did not use the quote in their story. Townhall picked it up.
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/bethb...-protecting-the-presidency-not-trump-n2546631

Regardless, not telling the FISA Judge that the Steele dossier was paid for by the Clinton campaign is actual impropriety. So, that hurdle was easy. If you want more, consider the way everyone is throwing James Comey under the bus. That's pretty high up to be considered expendable. Only Loretta Lynch and Barack Obama are higher and someone had to be giving him missions.

J

 

[Tristan_C]

I had never heard Mueller speak before. He always looked like his voice should have been deep but throaty. Maybe David Gergen with the bass turned up.

In the press conference he didn't say anything that we haven't been over before.
"We did not make a determination, one way or the other, about whether the president committed a crime."
"If we had evidence that Trump was innocent, we would have said so."

He explicitly noted in the statement that the people he indicted were "innocent until proven guilty," but omitted to convey this presumption to Individual 1.

 

[civvver]

That's just a ridiculous assertion by mueller, since his job was to determine if there was enough evidence to support indictment, not be judge and jury for alleged crimes. Way overstepping.