Comrade Trump

[BlueK]

Just out of curiosity, do we know how many persons in Clinton's campaign had contact with Russians? How about Obama's campaign?

I don't know. But if there had been reports of that, much less a few of those people actually being convicted of lying about it, then I'd think it was highly unusual and would suspect possible shady behavior behind it, as I don't see Putin as a particular trustworthy figure who has American interests at heart. I'm not a democrat. I'm just a libertarian who used to feel more comfortable among the Republicans. I wouldn't easily excuse the same thing from the democrats.

The lying thing is interesting. They know they were lying because they found the truth. Right? If you cant prove the truth then you cant prove the lie.

1. The truth that approximately 16 different people connected to the Trump campaign at some point were talking with Russians connected in some way to Putin or at least to some of his very close associates isn't in dispute. Another example -- Jeff Sessions recused himself over this.

2. That they were talking about working together to help Trump win the election is what Mueller said we didn't have sufficient evidence to prove. Those are two different things.

It's still weird even if #2 can't be proven based on what we know. I know it's probably politically more comfortable to stop wondering about why there were that many conversations or interactions.

[PaloAltoCougar]

Hard to argue with that. But that's not what he said.

Then I misstated; quelle surprise. I was being sardonic, as I think it's funny (but certainly very Trumpian) that a person can spend nearly two years taking daily shots at a process or contest, and then exult when the process/contest proclaims him the winner. But that's Trump's m.o. He spent months prior to November 2016 decrying the "rigged system" that is our democracy, but now preens proudly because that system handed him "the greatest electoral victory" ever.

The Mueller investigation hasn't changed my opinion of either Mueller or Trump. One has served his country selflessly and with integrity for over 40 years; the other is a narcissistic oaf.

[Bo Diddley]

If Mueller wasn't able to establish criminal wrongdoing beyond a reasonable doubt, as is the standard in criminal proceedings, then so be it. That doesn't mean there aren't or can't still be legitimate questions. I mean people still have those about OJ despite what the jury concluded.

My post you referenced falls under the second paragraph below. I still want to know why this thing with Clinton and Russia and so many of his people lying about their contacts there happened if there was nothing to cover up. It honestly still doesn't make sense to me. Regardless of how I or others might feel about Trump and how great or terrible of a person or president he is, I think these are still fair questions.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/25/polit...ler/index.html

Did Mueller uncover any evidence of collusion?
Trump and his administration immediately seized on Barr's summation of the Mueller report by insisting his oft-repeated claims of "NO COLLUSION" had been proven. And he's likely right! But that's not exactly what Barr said. Barr quoted from the report saying "[T]he investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities."
There is a difference between some strands of evidence that might suggest collusion and the ability to establish collusion beyond a reasonable doubt. In fact, there's a relatively wide chasm between those two things. So, did anything Mueller turned up fall into that gap? If so, what?

Why, if there was no collusion, were there SO many contacts between the Russians and Trump campaign. And why did so many of them lie about it?
This is the question that confounds me most in the wake of Barr's summation of the Mueller report. We know that at least 16 Trump associates had contact with Russians either during the 2016 campaign or in the presidential transition process. And we know that at least three of them -- national security adviser Michael Flynn, Trump fixer/lawyer Michael Cohen and foreign policy adviser George Papadopoulos -- lied to either Congress or federal investigators about those interactions. And in each case, those lies led to criminal charges.
If they didn't lie to protect a broader collusion effort, why did they lie? Perhaps to keep investigators away from other crimes unrelated to Russia's interference efforts in the 2016 campaign -- Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort ended up being convicted with financial crimes related to his dealings with the Ukrainian government, for example.
Or maybe the people Trump attracted (and attracts) were simply as comfortable lying as telling the truth. Despite Trump's repeated assertions, his campaign (and his administration) was not exactly comprised of the best and brightest minds in the political and legal worlds.

You keep saying beyond a reasonable doubt, but I doubt think that's the standard for the investigation. My guess is more likely a preponderance of evidence.

[BlueK]

You keep saying beyond a reasonable doubt, but I doubt think that's the standard for the investigation. My guess is more likely a preponderance of evidence.

I've read a few articles stating that the standard the feds tend to apply to themselves is not to indict if they aren't sure they can prove it. Given something of this stature, I can't imagine they'd proceed that way on just a preponderance. Even if they were going for a lower standard, it doesn't mean none of those contacts/communications happened. So what was the nature of them?

[Uncle Ted]

If Mueller wasn't able to establish criminal wrongdoing beyond a reasonable doubt, as is the standard in criminal proceedings, then so be it. That doesn't mean there aren't or can't still be legitimate questions. I mean people still have those about OJ despite what the jury concluded.

My post you referenced falls under the second paragraph below. I still want to know why this thing with Clinton and Russia and so many of his people lying about their contacts there happened if there was nothing to cover up. It honestly still doesn't make sense to me. Regardless of how I or others might feel about Trump and how great or terrible of a person or president he is, I think these are still fair questions.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/25/polit...ler/index.html

Did Mueller uncover any evidence of collusion?
Trump and his administration immediately seized on Barr's summation of the Mueller report by insisting his oft-repeated claims of "NO COLLUSION" had been proven. And he's likely right! But that's not exactly what Barr said. Barr quoted from the report saying "[T]he investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities."
There is a difference between some strands of evidence that might suggest collusion and the ability to establish collusion beyond a reasonable doubt. In fact, there's a relatively wide chasm between those two things. So, did anything Mueller turned up fall into that gap? If so, what?

Why, if there was no collusion, were there SO many contacts between the Russians and Trump campaign. And why did so many of them lie about it?
This is the question that confounds me most in the wake of Barr's summation of the Mueller report. We know that at least 16 Trump associates had contact with Russians either during the 2016 campaign or in the presidential transition process. And we know that at least three of them -- national security adviser Michael Flynn, Trump fixer/lawyer Michael Cohen and foreign policy adviser George Papadopoulos -- lied to either Congress or federal investigators about those interactions. And in each case, those lies led to criminal charges.
If they didn't lie to protect a broader collusion effort, why did they lie? Perhaps to keep investigators away from other crimes unrelated to Russia's interference efforts in the 2016 campaign -- Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort ended up being convicted with financial crimes related to his dealings with the Ukrainian government, for example.
Or maybe the people Trump attracted (and attracts) were simply as comfortable lying as telling the truth. Despite Trump's repeated assertions, his campaign (and his administration) was not exactly comprised of the best and brightest minds in the political and legal worlds.

Adam Schiff? Is that you? If so, you need to resign about having all that evidence "in plain sight" against Drumpf.

Embedded Tweet

Time to show all that compelling evidence... Mueller can't see it. And you are the chair of the House Intelligence Committee! How shameful.

[Bo Diddley]

I've read a few articles stating that the standard the feds tend to apply to themselves is not to indict if they aren't sure they can prove it. Even if they were going for a lower standard, it doesn't mean none of those contacts/communications happened. So what was the nature of them?

Still, the language in the report would be different. No, I haven't seen it.

[BlueK]

Adam Schiff? Is that you? If so, you need to resign about having all that evidence "in plain sight" against Drumpf.

Embedded Tweet

Time to show all that compelling evidence... Mueller can't see it. And you are the chair of the House Intelligence Committee! How shameful.

I'm just a citizen asking questions.

And when he said in plain sight maybe he's referring to, "Russia if you're listening..."

But I'm not him. And again, not what I was asking about.

[BlueK]

Still, the language in the report would be different. No, I haven't seen it.

What Barr's letter said was that they couldn't "establish." In criminal court, using that word would mean the prosecution thinks it proved its case. But theoretically it could also mean they found absolutely nothing, I guess.

But that's not really what I was asking about.

[SeattleUte]

If Mueller wasn't able to establish criminal wrongdoing beyond a reasonable doubt, as is the standard in criminal proceedings, then so be it. That doesn't mean there aren't or can't still be legitimate questions. I mean people still have those about OJ despite what the jury concluded.

My post you referenced falls under the second paragraph below. I still want to know why this thing with Clinton and Russia and so many of his people lying about their contacts there happened if there was nothing to cover up. It honestly still doesn't make sense to me. Regardless of how I or others might feel about Trump and how great or terrible of a person or president he is, I think these are still fair questions.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/25/polit...ler/index.html

Did Mueller uncover any evidence of collusion?
Trump and his administration immediately seized on Barr's summation of the Mueller report by insisting his oft-repeated claims of "NO COLLUSION" had been proven. And he's likely right! But that's not exactly what Barr said. Barr quoted from the report saying "[T]he investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities."
There is a difference between some strands of evidence that might suggest collusion and the ability to establish collusion beyond a reasonable doubt. In fact, there's a relatively wide chasm between those two things. So, did anything Mueller turned up fall into that gap? If so, what?

Why, if there was no collusion, were there SO many contacts between the Russians and Trump campaign. And why did so many of them lie about it?
This is the question that confounds me most in the wake of Barr's summation of the Mueller report. We know that at least 16 Trump associates had contact with Russians either during the 2016 campaign or in the presidential transition process. And we know that at least three of them -- national security adviser Michael Flynn, Trump fixer/lawyer Michael Cohen and foreign policy adviser George Papadopoulos -- lied to either Congress or federal investigators about those interactions. And in each case, those lies led to criminal charges.
If they didn't lie to protect a broader collusion effort, why did they lie? Perhaps to keep investigators away from other crimes unrelated to Russia's interference efforts in the 2016 campaign -- Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort ended up being convicted with financial crimes related to his dealings with the Ukrainian government, for example.
Or maybe the people Trump attracted (and attracts) were simply as comfortable lying as telling the truth. Despite Trump's repeated assertions, his campaign (and his administration) was not exactly comprised of the best and brightest minds in the political and legal worlds.

The investigation was not looking for evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. It wasn't even looking for probable cause. Neither of these was the standard. Regardless, Mueller said no evidence.

Give it up. People who know a lot more than you, who have worked full time on this while deploying the awesome resources and powers of the federal government for the past two years, concluded there was no evidence of collusion. So quit asking your questions. It's over. Michael Cohen was your last hope and he said there's nothing.

The left is having a collective meltdown as bad or worse than when Trump won the election. They should be scared. After the left staked so much on this, and nothing, categorically nothing to show for it. It was a witch hunt! Except that Mueller is an honest prosecutor.

This outcome is not surprising. What a travesty that the democrats tried to criminalize politics this way. It's their karma that it's blown up in their face. They should be in damage control, not doubling down with more questions.

[Color Me Badd Fan]

This segment ran two weeks ago:

This idiot ran the CIA FFS.

[Uncle Ted]

This segment ran two weeks ago:

This idiot ran the CIA FFS.

Isn't this the same idiot that voted for a commie?

[Uncle Ted]

Mueller didn’t clear Trump of obstruction, Barr did. That’s in line with the memo Barr prior to be appointment that a sitting president can’t be appointed. Interesting the investigation finished without a sit down with Trump or further interviews with his dishonest children.

Embedded Tweet

[Commando]

Cool. Now that Trump's innocent, let's see that report!

[Omaha 680]

Cool. Now that Trump's innocent, let's see that report!

I'm sure we will. Are you one of those who thinks Barr is actually reporting conclusions counter to those reached by the special counsel? That would be pretty foolish of him given he would be exposed when the report is made public. And yes there will be redactions, but we all read who will he recommending the redactions: the special counsel.

If Barr were misrepresenting Mueller's conclusions or if he tries to repress key information by redaction, I dont think Mueller or his team would stand for that.

Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk

[frank ryan]

I'm sure we will. Are you one of those who thinks Barr is actually reporting conclusions counter to those reached by the special counsel? That would be pretty foolish of him given he would be exposed when the report is made public. And yes there will be redactions, but we all read who will he recommending the redactions: the special counsel.

If Barr were misrepresenting Mueller's conclusions or if he tries to repress key information by redaction, I dont think Mueller or his team would stand for that.

Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk

McConnell has voted against its release despite Trump saying he had no objections.

Mueller didn’t make the call to clear Trump of obstruction, that was Barr. BTW, I don’t think Barr is a bad person and he’s certainly qualified but has been on record for a while saying you can’t indict a sitting president etc. So, he certainly has his perspective.