Trump Admin Meltdown Thread Part III - A Democratic House

[brian]

Well, it's not going away regardless.

[Nonlinear FC]

It's not going away, and if it's all fucked up with redactions, it will still be about Barr obstructing.

[Pruitt]

Never mind Russia...

Trump A Saudi Stooge

[Johnnie]

I know Now This is click baity, but this is worth it.

[Johnnie]

There are some comments in here already pre-pissed off about tomorrow.

One even 7x gilded that says go nuclear with a nice layout as to how.

[Nonlinear FC]

Anyone trying to argue that Barr is not a partisan hack at this point is deluding themselves. This is now the FIFTH TIME he has opined about a report that no one has seen prior to it being released.

He just held press conference where he said "No collusion" 6 times (by my count.) He also said that while Trump may have done things that looked like obstruction, he did so because he was pissed off from Day 1, so... He was within his right to do so.

Fucking bullshit.

[Joe K]

Considering that: (1) the report will be released within hours, consistent with the mid-April timeframe Barr originally gave; (2) members of Congress will get to see the unredacted version; and (3) Barr said he had no objections to Mueller testifying before Congress about his investigation — maybe, just maybe Barr is accurately characterizing it?

The more the Democratic Party digs in on the conspiracy theories the more they’re setting themselves up for further embarrassment.

[Ryan]

Maybe will be what him

[mister d]

^ ^ ^

[Nonlinear FC]

[EnochRoot]

Considering that: (1) the report will be released within hours, consistent with the mid-April timeframe Barr originally gave; (2) members of Congress will get to see the unredacted version; and (3) Barr said he had no objections to Mueller testifying before Congress about his investigation — maybe, just maybe Barr is accurately characterizing it?

The more the Democratic Party digs in on the conspiracy theories the more they’re setting themselves up for further embarrassment.

Or you know, maybe Barr is the partisan bag man we've known him to be for the past 30 years?

Whatever. You do you, JoeK.

[Steve of phpBB]

— maybe, just maybe Barr is accurately characterizing it?

Yeah.

I think Ice Cube got it right:

Arrest the President
You got the evidence
That n***a is
Russian intelligence.

[DaveInSeattle]

The red portion is what was in Barr's report...the blue is what was omitted.



Yep...total exoneration.

[BSF21]

I don't associate with it, but what's our shitter twitter in chief saying about it today? The usual name calling and all caps bullshit?

[brian]

I don't associate with it, but what's our shitter twitter in chief saying about it today? The usual name calling and all caps bullshit?

Only one I saw was the old chestnut "PRESIDENTIAL HARASSMENT!"

[BSF21]

I don't associate with it, but what's our shitter twitter in chief saying about it today? The usual name calling and all caps bullshit?

Only one I saw was the old chestnut "PRESIDENTIAL HARASSMENT!"

You know the old parenting tactic "I'll give you something to cry about"? I sincerely wish that upon this man. You want harassment? I'll give you something to feel harassed about. Not one motherfucker in DC with the balls.

[Joe K]

Although Mueller concluded that there was no evidence of a conspiracy between the Trump Campaign and Russia he certainly signaled that Congress might want to do something about the obstruction of justice issues. Good thing the Democrats are on it:

[Jerloma]

“Oh my God. This is terrible. This is the end of my Presidency. I’m fucked.”

Definitely the words of a completely innocent, law-abiding citizen.

[mister d]

Even if the odds were 80% that impeachment proceedings would be viewed as a positive, they’d still view them as too low and prefer maintain their completely acceptable worst case scenario of passively losing 2020.

[Rex]

You're right that Trump will likely win in 2020, unless there is a stock market crash and economic catastrophe or something, but I don't know that impeachment proceedings would change any of that. In fact, it might make re-election even more likely because the GOP would just dominate the messaging on that one. "Let the people decide"

[mister d]

Primary the entire leadership.

[Joe K]

Primary the entire leadership.

I’ve obviously been a skeptic of the underlying conspiracy theories that Trump was conspiring with Russia — and consider that skepticism fully vindicated by the Mueller Report. However, having read the Executive Summary on the obstruction of justice issues, it really doesn’t say much for the House leadership of they don’t think they can benefit politically from impeachment based on those grounds. If nothing else, it shows that Trump has no business overseeing the Executive Branch’s incredibly powerful law enforcement apparatus.

[Steve of phpBB]

I’ve obviously been a skeptic of the underlying conspiracy theories that Trump was conspiring with Russia — and consider that skepticism fully vindicated by the Mueller Report. However, having read the Executive Summary on the obstruction of justice issues, it really doesn’t say much for the House leadership of they don’t think they can benefit politically from impeachment based on those grounds. If nothing else, it shows that Trump has no business overseeing the Executive Branch’s incredibly powerful law enforcement apparatus.

If you mean that you didn't think there was an actual agreement to work together - sure. That was farfetched from the start, and the Mueller Report finds no evidence of that.

But that is all the Mueller Report found no evidence of. You had Russia offering the Trump campaign illicit assistance, the campaign saying "I love it, especially later in the summer," and then the campaign formed strategies around it the Russians' assistance, fully exploited it, and then helped to cover it up, both before and after the election and before and after the inauguration. At no point did the campaign repudiate or report the foreign interference.

That's collusion, and that is what people like Adam Schiff have been talking about.

[Steve of phpBB]

Primary the entire leadership.

I already donated $20 to Steny Hoyer's 2020 Dem primary opponent, McKayla Wilkes.

https://www.mckayla2020.com/

[brian]

Guys, the Dems don't even need to answer the impeachment question. This tweet right here is the political equivalent of hitting a 475-foot homer. That's all any of them need to say. Starting impeachment proceedings doesn't have to lead to a vote to impeach. The circus of the impeachment hearings is better than an ultimately useless vote on impeachment anyway.

[EnochRoot]

Shhhhhwiiiinnnng!

[Square Rob]

I’ve obviously been a skeptic of the underlying conspiracy theories that Trump was conspiring with Russia — and consider that skepticism fully vindicated by the Mueller Report. However, having read the Executive Summary on the obstruction of justice issues, it really doesn’t say much for the House leadership of they don’t think they can benefit politically from impeachment based on those grounds. If nothing else, it shows that Trump has no business overseeing the Executive Branch’s incredibly powerful law enforcement apparatus.

If you mean that you didn't think there was an actual agreement to work together - sure. That was farfetched from the start, and the Mueller Report finds no evidence of that.

But that is all the Mueller Report found no evidence of. You had Russia offering the Trump campaign illicit assistance, the campaign saying "I love it, especially later in the summer," and then the campaign formed strategies around it the Russians' assistance, fully exploited it, and then helped to cover it up, both before and after the election and before and after the inauguration. At no point did the campaign repudiate or report the foreign interference.

That's collusion, and that is what people like Adam Schiff have been talking about.

And frankly, it appears there may have been a lot more there, but people like sessions pled the 5th on specific discussions where it was only them and people tied to Russian intelligence. FWIW the omerta between all but basically Cohen held extremely well. Only reason they got manafort was through other channels and he had committed enough other crimes they could raid him.

[Joe K]

But that is all the Mueller Report found no evidence of. You had Russia offering the Trump campaign illicit assistance, the campaign saying "I love it, especially later in the summer," and then the campaign formed strategies around it the Russians' assistance, fully exploited it, and then helped to cover it up, both before and after the election and before and after the inauguration. At no point did the campaign repudiate or report the foreign interference.

That's collusion, and that is what people like Adam Schiff have been talking about.

This is just one example of how the known facts have been sensationalized a bit to fit the preset narrative of a criminal conspiracy, which is made clear by the Mueller Report’s discussion of this meeting. Although the attendees at the Trump Tower meeting had some connections to the Russian government, which they played up to get the meeting, it’s never been shown that they were actually acting on behalf of the government. So it wasn’t “Russia” offering assistance but rather a handful of Russian citizens. Moreover, it’s not clear the assistance offered was “illicit.” They did not claim to have hacked or stolen documents from Clinton or the DNC. Rather, they (falsely) claimed to have Russian government records showing misconduct by the Clintons. Mueller specifically addressed whether seeking such information could be a campaign finance violation and concluded it likely was not. That’s why no one has been charged or will be charged in connection with the Trump Tower meeting. So if that’s the best evidence of “conclusion,” it’s not saying much.

[DaveInSeattle]

But that is all the Mueller Report found no evidence of. You had Russia offering the Trump campaign illicit assistance, the campaign saying "I love it, especially later in the summer," and then the campaign formed strategies around it the Russians' assistance, fully exploited it, and then helped to cover it up, both before and after the election and before and after the inauguration. At no point did the campaign repudiate or report the foreign interference.

That's collusion, and that is what people like Adam Schiff have been talking about.

This is just one example of how the known facts have been sensationalized a bit to fit the preset narrative of a criminal conspiracy, which is made clear by the Mueller Report’s discussion of this meeting. Although the attendees at the Trump Tower meeting had some connections to the Russian government, which they played up to get the meeting, it’s never been shown that they were actually acting on behalf of the government. So it wasn’t “Russia” offering assistance but rather a handful of Russian citizens. Moreover, it’s not clear the assistance offered was “illicit.” They did not claim to have hacked or stolen documents from Clinton or the DNC. Rather, they (falsely) claimed to have Russian government records showing misconduct by the Clintons. Mueller specifically addressed whether seeking such information could be a campaign finance violation and concluded it likely was not. That’s why no one has been charged or will be charged in connection with the Trump Tower meeting. So if that’s the best evidence of “conclusion,” it’s not saying much.

You had the son, son-in-law, daughter, and campaign manager meeting with Russian assets promising "dirt" on the Clinton campaign. And then lying their asses off about it (the whole 'adoption' story).

Sound pretty fucking guilty to me.

[Joe K]

But that is all the Mueller Report found no evidence of. You had Russia offering the Trump campaign illicit assistance, the campaign saying "I love it, especially later in the summer," and then the campaign formed strategies around it the Russians' assistance, fully exploited it, and then helped to cover it up, both before and after the election and before and after the inauguration. At no point did the campaign repudiate or report the foreign interference.

That's collusion, and that is what people like Adam Schiff have been talking about.

This is just one example of how the known facts have been sensationalized a bit to fit the preset narrative of a criminal conspiracy, which is made clear by the Mueller Report’s discussion of this meeting. Although the attendees at the Trump Tower meeting had some connections to the Russian government, which they played up to get the meeting, it’s never been shown that they were actually acting on behalf of the government. So it wasn’t “Russia” offering assistance but rather a handful of Russian citizens. Moreover, it’s not clear the assistance offered was “illicit.” They did not claim to have hacked or stolen documents from Clinton or the DNC. Rather, they (falsely) claimed to have Russian government records showing misconduct by the Clintons. Mueller specifically addressed whether seeking such information could be a campaign finance violation and concluded it likely was not. That’s why no one has been charged or will be charged in connection with the Trump Tower meeting. So if that’s the best evidence of “conclusion,” it’s not saying much.

You had the son, son-in-law, daughter, and campaign manager meeting with Russian assets promising "dirt" on the Clinton campaign. And then lying their asses off about it (the whole 'adoption' story).

Sound pretty fucking guilty to me.

If in fact they lied their asses off, how come none of them were charged with perjury? Also, to call the attendees “Russian assets” is a major stretch considering the lack of evidence they were actually working on behalf of the Russian government.

[DaveInSeattle]

But that is all the Mueller Report found no evidence of. You had Russia offering the Trump campaign illicit assistance, the campaign saying "I love it, especially later in the summer," and then the campaign formed strategies around it the Russians' assistance, fully exploited it, and then helped to cover it up, both before and after the election and before and after the inauguration. At no point did the campaign repudiate or report the foreign interference.

That's collusion, and that is what people like Adam Schiff have been talking about.

This is just one example of how the known facts have been sensationalized a bit to fit the preset narrative of a criminal conspiracy, which is made clear by the Mueller Report’s discussion of this meeting. Although the attendees at the Trump Tower meeting had some connections to the Russian government, which they played up to get the meeting, it’s never been shown that they were actually acting on behalf of the government. So it wasn’t “Russia” offering assistance but rather a handful of Russian citizens. Moreover, it’s not clear the assistance offered was “illicit.” They did not claim to have hacked or stolen documents from Clinton or the DNC. Rather, they (falsely) claimed to have Russian government records showing misconduct by the Clintons. Mueller specifically addressed whether seeking such information could be a campaign finance violation and concluded it likely was not. That’s why no one has been charged or will be charged in connection with the Trump Tower meeting. So if that’s the best evidence of “conclusion,” it’s not saying much.

You had the son, son-in-law, daughter, and campaign manager meeting with Russian assets promising "dirt" on the Clinton campaign. And then lying their asses off about it (the whole 'adoption' story).

Sound pretty fucking guilty to me.

If in fact they lied their asses off, how come none of them were charged with perjury? Also, to call the attendees “Russian assets” is a major stretch considering the lack of evidence they were actually working on behalf of the Russian government.

As far as I know, they were never put under oath. But they did in fact lie to the American people...about meeting with Russians...promising "dirt" on Hillary.

Remember when that would have been considered a bad thing?

The attendees...the Russians? Do you really think that they were just free-lancing? That Putin, or his underlings, had no idea about any of it?

[brian]

Good luck trying to convince Joe that the Russian Federation even existed in 2016. They were just some people that did a thing.

[Joe K]

Good luck trying to convince Joe that the Russian Federation even existed in 2016. They were just some people that did a thing.

It’s a country of 145 million people, every one of which is closely controlled by Putin and lacks any personal agency.
As DiS said, Russians don’t “freelance.” Putin and his underlings know all.

Oh and to the other point, Don Jr. and Kushner both testified extensively to Congress about the Trump Tower meeting. So yes, they could have been criminally charged for lying.

[Nonlinear FC]

People a LOT smarter than anyone on this board are making a very good case that there was more than a little smoke regarding Russia, and that Mueller was following DoJ policy by not bringing an indictment on obstruction. He was leaving that to Congress. (I posted about the latter 3 weeks ago when we were discussing Barr's bullshit 4 page memo.)

https://www.vox.com/2019/4/18/18484731/ ... al-experts

Trump's people lied and destroyed evidence. So acting like we got to the bottom of anything through Meuller is preposterous and self-serving.

On top of that, the Russian section is HEAVILY REDACTED, so we don't even have all of the information on the conspiracy side of things.

[Nonlinear FC]

What's truly disturbing about people taking a victory lap is best summed up Ric Simmons, OSU law prof:

“Putin has won.” Election Day 2016, an intercepted message to Kirill Dmitriev, a Russian national “closely connected to Putin.” (On page 149 of the Mueller report.) This line says everything that the American public should remember about the Mueller investigation. Russian interference in the election has been established beyond doubt. Worse, Mueller found that the Trump campaign “expected to benefit” from criminal actions by Russians who successfully targeted the American election. It is not a crime for any citizen to associate with criminals and spies, nor to enjoy their favors, but that is surely too low a standard for a president of the United States.

Viewing this case through the lens of criminal law is a mistake. The president takes an oath “to take care that the laws be faithfully executed.” Few constitutionalists believe that the special counsel would indict a sitting president for an ordinary crime. The constitutional power to judge a president is left to Congress. Congress must determine whether there has been a constitutional offense.

We now know that, contrary to his oath to “take care” that the laws be faithfully executed, the president tried to fire the special counsel, and he fired the head of the FBI, among other acts to thwart the investigation of criminal election interference by our enemies. These are not the acts of one faithful to the law. They are acts of one who would put his own election above the integrity of America’s democracy.

And this from Stephen Legomsky, Wash U law prof:

Those accounts gave the president an undeserved free pass, for even Mr. Barr’s cherry-picked quotes had made no such claims. We can now see that all Mr. Mueller decided on that issue was that “the investigation did not establish” such a conspiracy. To non-lawyers this might seem like splitting hairs, but lawyers understand how important that difference is. “Establish” is prosecutor talk that simply means “I won’t bring an indictment because I don’t think a jury would find the proof of conspiracy to be ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’” — an extremely high standard of proof. As the Mueller report emphasizes in the introduction, “A statement that the investigation did not establish particular facts does not mean there was no evidence of those facts.”

To the contrary, we now know that Mr. Mueller found abundant evidence of precisely such a conspiracy between the Trump campaign and the Russians. The section titled “Trump Campaign and the Dissemination of Hacked Materials” was very heavily redacted, but even the non-redacted evidence of conspiracy was substantial: campaign chairman Paul Manafort’s “periodically” sharing internal polling data and other campaign updates with the Russians; the campaign’s promotion of “dozens of tweets, posts, and other political content created by” the Russian hacking operation; Trump publicly urging Russia to search for Hillary Clinton’s “missing” emails; the campaign’s successful effort to tone down the anti-Russian language in the Republican Party platform at the nominating convention; the president’s bizarre support for Putin, resistance to sanctions, and corresponding antagonism toward our NATO allies; the multiple meetings between top campaign officials and Russians with Kremlin ties, including their famous meeting at the New York Trump hotel for the express, albeit ultimately unsuccessful, purpose of getting dirt on Hillary Clinton; and the lies they were caught in when they tried to deny either the meetings themselves or their content.


Whether or not that pile of evidence rises to the level of “proof beyond a reasonable doubt,” it is of grave concern. There is thus ample reason for Congress — which is not subject to the same standard of proof as a criminal prosecutor — to continue investigating this issue, as well as the obstruction of justice question and all the other disturbing allegations surrounding President Trump and his associates. There are also the continuing, very legitimate investigations by various US attorneys’ offices and state attorney general offices. And, of course, there is still hope that at least Congress, and perhaps the public, will find a way to see the crucial information that Mr. Barr has redacted from the Mueller report. So there is much more to come.

[Nonlinear FC]

Stetson Law Prof:

Barr’s initial characterization of Mueller’s decision not to pursue obstruction of justice seemed to indicate that there was insufficient evidence. But the actual Mueller report seems to indicate that part of why the special counsel declined to make a decision on prosecuting obstruction was because of the DOJ’s longstanding policy that a president cannot be indicted.

Gee, where have we read this before? Wait, I remember now...

Indeed, the report states, “given [that the President cannot be indicted under OLC policy], the facts known to us, and the strong public interest in safeguarding the integrity of the criminal justice system, we conducted a thorough and factual investigation in order to preserve the evidence when memories were fresh and documentary materials were available.” This seems to indicate that the special counsel was trying to preserve evidence of potential obstruction crimes for possible future prosecution when Trump was no longer president or for use by Congress.

Huh, this also seems like familiar territory. Almost like people responding to Barr's bullshit 4 page memo might've been making this point 3 weeks ago.

This report gives Congress multiple avenues of investigation to pursue. Accusations of obstruction of justice were counts of impeachment against both Presidents Clinton and Nixon. The open question is whether the Congress will have the stomach to peruse the 10 instances of potential obstruction of justice laid bare in the redacted Mueller report against President Trump now. Moreover, from the redactions that refer to “on-going matters,” clearly other legal shoes are yet to drop.

Just want to underscore this last point. Not only is a victory lap on Russian conspiracy weird given all that is in the report, this section was HEAVILY REDACTED so we don't even have all of what is going to come out. Because it will come out.

[EnochRoot]

I read that yesterday.

Joe K blends in well enough, but the dude is a victim of a severely disturbed, alternative thought bubble.

[Joe K]

I read that yesterday.

Joe K blends in well enough, but the dude is a victim of a severely disturbed, alternative thought bubble.

Ok, bud.

Should I go back over the various Russiagate predictions made on this board since 2016 and see whose predictions have been the most accurate? It’s amazing that after Mueller’s investigation concluded without any indictments of anyone for conspiring with Russia — not Trump, Jr., Kushner, Page, Bannon — that you have the audacity to say that I’m the one with a “severely disturbed, alternative thought bubble.”

[Nonlinear FC]

And yet I can find an article in less than 5 minutes quoting a dozen legal experts that says you are wrong.

At what school are you a law professor?

Who the fuck cares what was predicted on this board, man? WHO. CARES.

You are thumping your chest when there are people that literally... this is their job... And they are saying you are wrong.

Fucking bizarre.

[Joe K]

And yet I can find an article in less than 5 minutes quoting a dozen legal experts that says you are wrong.

At what school are you a law professor?

Who the fuck cares what was predicted on this board, man? WHO. CARES.

You are thumping your chest when there are people that literally... this is their job... And they are saying you are wrong.

Fucking bizarre.

Yeah it’s really bizarre that I’d take offense to being called out repeatedly by Bengal, Giff and Enoch for three years — and now accused of being “severely disturbed.”

And I made exactly one factual statement in my post: that no Americans were indicted for conspiring with Russia. That’s a true statement that isn’t contradicted by anything those law professors said.

But carry on.