The Mueller Report. BREAKING NEWS: AG’s Summary Report Released. NO COLLUSION!

[Uncle Joe]

10 hours ago, SoCal Deek said:

Friendly? Isn’t that nice.

[B-Man]

 

 

 

 

.

[Deranged Rhino]

 

[Tiberius]

The Trump patter of blaming others, distracting and obfuscating AHEAD of criminal acts repeating itself here. Trump knows he can't win without Putin's bloody hands on the scale so here he goes: 

 

Quote

 

President Donald Trump today suggested tech giants like Google and Twitter are the greatest threat to the integrity of the 2020 presidential election — and said anti-conservative bias among the companies had a greater impact in 2016 than Russian meddling.

"Let me tell you, they're trying to rig the election," Trump said in a phone interview on Fox Business. "That's what we should be looking at, not that witch hunt, the phony witch hunt."

Charging Google with being "totally biased" in favor of Democrats and fomenting "hatred for the Republicans," Trump downplayed Russia's 2016 social media manipulation: "You know, they talk about Russia because they had some bloggers—and by the way, those bloggers, some of them were going both ways. They were for Clinton and for Trump."

Lawmakers, academics and U.S. intelligence officials are in broad agreement that Russia mounted a vast online disinformation campaign ahead of the 2016 election with the aim of inflaming American political and social tensions, supporting Trump's candidacy and depressing Democratic voter turnout.

 

And no, the vast online disinformation campaign was only part of the way the election was stolen in 2016 

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/06/26/trump-tech-companies-2020-election-1383283The Trump pattern of blaming others, distracting and obfuscating AHEAD of criminal acts repeating itself here. Trump knows he can't win without Putin's bloody hands on the scale so here he goes: 

 

Quote

 

President Donald Trump today suggested tech giants like Google and Twitter are the greatest threat to the integrity of the 2020 presidential election — and said anti-conservative bias among the companies had a greater impact in 2016 than Russian meddling.

"Let me tell you, they're trying to rig the election," Trump said in a phone interview on Fox Business. "That's what we should be looking at, not that witch hunt, the phony witch hunt."

Charging Google with being "totally biased" in favor of Democrats and fomenting "hatred for the Republicans," Trump downplayed Russia's 2016 social media manipulation: "You know, they talk about Russia because they had some bloggers—and by the way, those bloggers, some of them were going both ways. They were for Clinton and for Trump."

Lawmakers, academics and U.S. intelligence officials are in broad agreement that Russia mounted a vast online disinformation campaign ahead of the 2016 election with the aim of inflaming American political and social tensions, supporting Trump's candidacy and depressing Democratic voter turnout.

 

And no, the vast online disinformation campaign was only part of the way the election was stolen in 2016 

[Deranged Rhino]

Three investigations have determined the election was not stolen... The House. The Senate. And Mueller's two year long probe. 

 

What do you call someone who ignores the evidence in favor of their own pet theory? 

 

Tibs, you've become the biggest conspiracy theorist on this site. A title I never thought I'd have to relinquish. 

 

(I pass mine to you)

[Tiberius]

1 minute ago, Deranged Rhino said:

Three investigations have determined the election was not stolen... T 

 

That is totally not true. They never came out and said that. They just say they don't know. But Russians were in election systems. Russians hacked voters names, Russians hacks voting companies for their software. Russians hack emails, Russians used said emails to damage Democrats, Russians launched a massive disinformation campaign

 

 

Stolen election. Of course you have to call me crazy, its what all guilty people say 

[McGee Return TD]

Just now, Tiberius said:

That is totally not true. They never came out and said that. They just say they don't know. But Russians were in election systems. Russians hacked voters names, Russians hacks voting companies for their software. Russians hack emails, Russians used said emails to damage Democrats, Russians launched a massive disinformation campaign

 

 

Stolen election. Of course you have to call me crazy, its what all guilty people say 

 

DR is a #deepstate moron - you know this by now

[Deranged Rhino]

3 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

That is totally not true. They never came out and said that.

 

In fact they did. All three. 

 

Helps to read the reports you're basing your conspiracy theories on.

[Tiberius]

Just now, McGee Return TD said:

 

DR is a #deepstate moron - you know this by now

I know, me and him have butted heads for years now

Just now, Deranged Rhino said:

 

In fact they did. All three. 

 

Helps to read the reports you're basing your conspiracy theories on.

They asserted that the disinformation campaign changed no votes? How could they do that? Just to look and a tiny part of this big attack? 

 

 

Hint: They can't. I like how that works both ways  

 

Quote

 

 In their written statement, the chairmen asserted, “Americans have demanded to hear directly from the Special Counsel so they can understand what he and his team examined, uncovered, and determined about Russia’s attack on our democracy, the Trump campaign’s acceptance and use of that help, and President Trump and his associates’ obstruction of the investigation into that attack.”

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) gleefully issued her own statement. “The Mueller Report revealed that the Russians waged a ‘sweeping and systematic’ attack on our elections, and America’s top intelligence and law enforcement officials have warned that the Russians will attack our elections again,” she said. “Yet, sadly the President calls it a hoax, and suggests that he would welcome Russian interference again. Members of Congress must honor our oath and our patriotic duty to follow the facts, so we can protect our democracy.”

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/06/26/four-reasons-why-muellers-agreement-testify-is-big-deal/?utm_term=.02f1e4681f07

[B-Man]

House Dems Excited About Mueller Testimony, But Not Half As Excited As Republicans Are

 

John Brennan’s Thrown Together 2017 ICA Report on Russia Is Being Investigated

 

 

 

Newly Released Documents: Obama Officials Changed Intelligence Sharing Rules In Final Days To Undermine Trump Administration

 

 

 

 

[3rdnlng]

38 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

That is totally not true. They never came out and said that. They just say they don't know. But Russians were in election systems. Russians hacked voters names, Russians hacks voting companies for their software. Russians hack emails, Russians used said emails to damage Democrats, Russians launched a massive disinformation campaign

 

 

Stolen election. Of course you have to call me crazy, its what all guilty people say 

HAHA Gator, throwing the gun.

[Cinga]

51 minutes ago, B-Man said:

House Dems Excited About Mueller Testimony, But Not Half As Excited As Republicans Are

 

John Brennan’s Thrown Together 2017 ICA Report on Russia Is Being Investigated

 

 

 

Newly Released Documents: Obama Officials Changed Intelligence Sharing Rules In Final Days To Undermine Trump Administration

 

 

 

 

 

I find it amazing that IF the Russians DID influence our elections in any way, it was done under Obama's watch yet idiots like Gator/Nadler/Schiiff/Pelosi/Schumer/AOC/Liberal Media blame Trump!

[dpberr]

I don't think Robert Mueller wants to be the casus belli for any sort of impeachment proceeding.  

 

He isn't going to say anything that contradicts the official report.  

 

The Democrats really should pivot fully to 2020 and support their candidates and an actual platform of substance.  

[Cinga]

5 minutes ago, dpberr said:

I don't think Robert Mueller wants to be the casus belli for any sort of impeachment proceeding.  

 

He isn't going to say anything that contradicts the official report.  

 

The Democrats really should pivot fully to 2020 and support their candidates and an actual platform of substance.  

 

They can't... What substance do they have besides #orangemanbad and trying to claim who can give away the most free sh1t?

[dpberr]

1 minute ago, Cinga said:

 

They can't... What substance do they have besides #orangemanbad and trying to claim who can give away the most free sh1t?

 

I agree.  Time is a tickin' because impeachment, "Trump Bad" and "Everything is Free" are all DOA platforms in the general.  

 

Everyone in America knows Trump is very likely the bad guy everyone thinks he is and he's still the favorite to win the election.  That is their starting point.  

[Foxx]

2 hours ago, 3rdnlng said:

HAHA Gator, throwing the gun.

 

[DC Tom]

2 hours ago, dpberr said:

I don't think Robert Mueller wants to be the casus belli for any sort of impeachment proceeding.  

 

 

Won't stop the media from reporting he expressed support for impeachment, though.

[Foxx]

do you want to know why there was no obstruction by Trump?

 

 

 

[Deranged Rhino]

Garbage... 

 

 

 

[Buffalo_Gal]

16 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

Garbage... 

 

 

 

Lindsey Graham, line 1! 
Paging Lindsey Graham to line 1! 

Methinks the Senate may want to get in on quizzing Mr. Mueller. 

[Deranged Rhino]

*More

 

 

[3rdnlng]

18 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

*More

 

 

I don't know what the big deal is. The FBI never even kept notes when they interviewed Hillary.

[Foxx]

2 hours ago, Deranged Rhino said:

Garbage... 

 

 

 

what kind of *****ery is this?

[B-Man]

5 minutes ago, Foxx said:

what kind of *****ery is this?

 

 

The answers are in the emails

 

Adam Schiff has ensured he can selectively leak anything he wants and there will be no way to definitively debunk his lies.

 

The *only* reason to do this is so you can leak lies without fear of the truth catching up to you.

 

 

.

[Deranged Rhino]

1 hour ago, B-Man said:

 

 

The answers are in the emails

 

Adam Schiff has ensured he can selectively leak anything he wants and there will be no way to definitively debunk his lies.

 

The *only* reason to do this is so you can leak lies without fear of the truth catching up to you.

 

 

.

 

100%

 

It's the move of a dishonest, and frightened man. I give you, Adam Schiff.

[B-Man]

 

 

"20 questions for Robert Mueller."

 

You should read this, from Jonathan Turley.

[B-Man]

The Ghost of Hunter Thompson Lurks over Mueller’s Coming.

 

 

You don't have to exhume Dr. Hunter S. Thompson to explain the sudden turnabout that has led the previously silent Robert Mueller to accept subpoenas to testify in front of two congressional committees. But it doesn't hurt.

 

Fear, as the good doctor famously said, and loathing.

 

The fear is obvious. The Democrats and Mueller too, of course, not to mention an indeterminate number of FBI, DOJ, State Department, intel agency, and former administration scalawags are scared defecation-less waiting for shoes to drop from U.S. Attorney John Durham and Inspector General Michael Horowitz working under the steady hand of AG William Barr.

 

Careers could be ending, some going to jail. Not even their obedient media lackeys can save them in a court of law. It looks at least possible, maybe even probable, that this will be the biggest political scandal in the history of the country.

 

No wonder they want to get out in front of it as much as they can, even if that the means the special counsels having to face truly embarrassing questions like "Just when, Mr. Mueller, did you realize there was no Russia collusion?" He's probably already rehearsed about thirty answers to that.

("How's this one sound, dear?")

 

House intel chair Adam Schiff says what he's really trying to do is explain "to the American people the serious counterintelligence concerns raised by the Mueller report." He must assume we're ignoramuses — or is that projection?

 

Okay, I'm picking on someone for whom a lobotomy would be irrelevant, but he has lied to the American public consistently for over two years and deserves to be punished and humiliated. He undoubtedly knows this, because, as a member of the House Intelligence Committee, he was supposedly privy to the truth all that time. (The number of Democrat politicians who deliberately lied to the public about Russia is extraordinarily long. Hello, Senator Warner...

 

Someone should make a YouTube of their lies when this is over, but the organization would undoubtedly ban it.)

 

Another question for which Mueller is undoubtedly rehearsing a response is "When did you learn the Steele dossier was a fraudulent document paid for by the Clinton campaign and did you inform the FISA court about it?"

 

You don't have to overhear rehearsals with his wife to know the answer to that one: "I cannot answer because that is beyond the scope."

 

But to anyone with an IQ in triple digits, that's the very thing everyone wants to know. I predict quite a number of "beyond the scope" answers from the special counsel and I would advise Republicans to craft their questions to evince them. Ideologues like Nadler and Schiff may find legal ways of shutting these questions down. I'm sure they're preparing them, but the public will have heard them and they will see Mueller ducking, as indeed he will.

 

Another question: "Why didn't you investigate the provenance of your own investigation? How could you know it was fair without doing that?" Again, "beyond the scope" squared, because an honest answer might send Mueller to jail, just as a similarly honest answer as to why he lined the investigation with thirteen Democrats and not one Republican. That group included the highly-controversial Andrew Weismann of the Enron scandal and more. Not exactly anyone's idea of Atticus Finch.

 

So the fear. As for the loathing, it's the only replacement for fear that they have. When fear fails or gets too excessive to handle, enter loathing. We've seen plenty of that for the last few years.

 

Some worry the inspector general's report, promised for May or June, has not yet appeared. I don't. Horowitz is only allowed to question people currently working for the government. Durham can go after anyone and evidently has. He can probably be extremely helpful to Horowitz and vice versa. So we shall see.

 

 

More at the link:

[B-Man]

 

 

Insinuendo: Why the Muller Report Doth Repeat So Much.

 

 

 

.

[row_33]

This is STILL a thing?

 

 

[Deranged Rhino]

3 hours ago, row_33 said:

This is STILL a thing?

 

 

 

July 17th will be an attempt to do this: 

 

 

[row_33]

then again it would have been awesome to watch some of those actors read out the Report

 

as a comedy routine, nothing to want to murder people over

[The Red King]

The thread title is misleading.  At no point did the report determine or state there was no collusion.  Rather, it was their conclusion that there was not enough evidence to prove or disprove collusion.  So, the report's answer to "Was there collusion?" is simply, "I dunno.  Maybe?".  And with all the time and effort invested, that's in some ways even more frustrating then a clear, decisive yes or no.

 

At the same time, it is vexing to hear Trump and some Republicans repeatedly saying the Report confirmed no collusion when they damn well know that's a lie.  Saying you didn't get a good enough look so you can't really say if a boy stole a cookie or not does not mean the kid didn't take one.  It doesn't exonorate him.  Yet that's exactly what Trump and the Republicans are claiming, despite knowing full well it is an outright lie.  And they're doing so trusting many Americans won't actually read the report and as a result might actually buy the manure they're peddling.

Edited July 3, 2019 by The Red King

[Deranged Rhino]

21 minutes ago, The Red King said:

The thread title is misleading.  At no point did the report determine or state there was no collusion.  Rather, it was their conclusion that there was not enough evidence to prove or disprove collusion. 

 

What's the fundamental legal principle in this country?

[Deranged Rhino]

45 minutes ago, The Red King said:

Rather, it was their conclusion that there was not enough evidence to prove or disprove collusion. 

 

You're already sliding and bending the rule of law to fit your narrative. One that's devoid of factual support or a proper foundation -- both legally and evidenciary wise. 

 

A prosecutor's job, which is what the SCO was, is to see if there's enough evidence to convict, and then ONLY then, bring a case to court. Implying or suggesting that just because there's some "evidence" that means collusion happened is not how our system of justice works, nor should it work. Every scrap of "evidence" in Volume I is untested and one sided, not "proof" of anything as even the report admits -- it's never been cross examined or rebutted in a court of law. And there's overwhelming evidence to suggest much of its foundation was not only illegal and improper to begin with, but deeply - no, fatally - flawed. 

 

I know this to be true because I've read the report in full. I've also spent a great deal of time examining the entire story and every scrap of evidence (including talking to people involved first hand) to try my best to understand it. 

 

45 minutes ago, The Red King said:

So, the report's answer to "Was there collusion?" is simply, "I dunno.  Maybe?".  And with all the time and effort invested, that's in some ways even more frustrating then a clear, decisive yes or no.

 

It's not "more frustrating" -- there WAS a clear and decisive yes or no in the Volume I: 

 

"The investigation  did not establish that members of the Trump campaigned conspired with the Russian government in its election interference activities."

 

That's a decisive NO to collusion/conspiracy. After two years, thousands of warrants and mountains of disclosure, they DID NOT ESTABLISH any conspiracy between Trump/Russia. 

 

45 minutes ago, The Red King said:

At the same time, it is vexing to hear Trump and some Republicans repeatedly saying the Report confirmed no collusion when they damn well know that's a lie. 

 

It's not a lie. 

 

45 minutes ago, The Red King said:

Saying you didn't get a good enough look so you can't really say if a boy stole a cookie or not does not mean the kid didn't take one.  

 

The SCO never states that it "didn't get a good enough look" in any manner or form. They clearly state they DID NOT ESTABLISH a conspiracy. That's precise legal language with meaning, which you're ignoring as you attempt to invert the entire premise of our system of justice in order to fit into the narrative you've bought and swallowed thanks to a media and establishment which has lied to you for 3+ years about this very topic. 

 

You should be outraged at how badly misinformed you've been on this subject by whichever news sources or experts you have deferred to in forming this opinion. 

 

45 minutes ago, The Red King said:

It doesn't exonorate him. 

A prosecutor's job is not to exonerate anyone. The standard of justice is NOT, nor has it ever been, guilty unless exonerated. What you're advocating for (likely unknowingly) is a complete reversal of our system of justice and due process in favor of a fascist/authoritarian legal system wherein everyone is presumed guilty until proven innocent. 

 

What you're pushing should alarm you if you're honestly able to step back from and out of your partisan bubble.

 

45 minutes ago, The Red King said:

Yet that's exactly what Trump and the Republicans are claiming, despite knowing full well it is an outright lie. 

 

It's not a lie. If a prosecutor DID NOT ESTABLISH a conspiracy, that means there is no case to bring. And since we are all innocent until proven guilty, Trump remains innocent in the eyes of the law -- which even Mueller would agree to. 

 

The lie is the belief you still hold that there was a conspiracy between Trump and Russia. It was never real. Ever. It was a concoction. And I can (and have) proven it.

 

45 minutes ago, The Red King said:

And they're doing so trusting many Americans won't actually read the report and as a result might actually buy the manure they're peddling.

 

I can tell you have not read the report in full... nor do you have a grasp of the facts of the story itself. 

 

You're going to read this as me attacking you. It's not. 

 

It's me challenging you to learn more about this matter and figure out why you believe what you do at present (and then who convinced you of that). 

 

 

 

(that was supposed to be one post, not two -- I fudged it up)

Edited July 3, 2019 by Deranged Rhino

[Westside]

2 hours ago, The Red King said:

The thread title is misleading.  At no point did the report determine or state there was no collusion.  Rather, it was their conclusion that there was not enough evidence to prove or disprove collusion.  So, the report's answer to "Was there collusion?" is simply, "I dunno.  Maybe?".  And with all the time and effort invested, that's in some ways even more frustrating then a clear, decisive yes or no.

 

At the same time, it is vexing to hear Trump and some Republicans repeatedly saying the Report confirmed no collusion when they damn well know that's a lie.  Saying you didn't get a good enough look so you can't really say if a boy stole a cookie or not does not mean the kid didn't take one.  It doesn't exonorate him.  Yet that's exactly what Trump and the Republicans are claiming, despite knowing full well it is an outright lie.  And they're doing so trusting many Americans won't actually read the report and as a result might actually buy the manure they're peddling.

Lol!!!!

It's good to know you're not biased in any way. 

This was the funniest post I've read in days. 

 

[The Red King]

When you assume, you make an ass out of you and me.

 

What am I biased against, facts?  The fact is, there were not enough facts to deny or establish collusion.  At no point in my post did I say or even suggest there was collusion.  Next time you read into my post, try actually reading it.

 

Irony is, you showed your bias pretty well.  Like the kid and a cookie jar example I gave, the report said there was not enough evidence to prove collusion.  Nowhere in the report does it specifically state there was no collusion.  This isn't opinion, it's concrete fact.

 

Seriously, show me where in the report it specifically says 'no collusion'.  Go on, I'll wait..

Edited July 3, 2019 by The Red King

[Foxx]

3 minutes ago, The Red King said:

When you assume, you make an ass out of you and me.

 

What am I biased against, facts?  The fact is, there were not enough facts to deny or establish collusion.  At no point in my post did I say or even suggest there was collusion.  Next time you read into my post, try actually reading it.

 

Irony is, you showed your bias pretty well.  Like the kid and a cookie jar example I gave, the report said there was not enough evidence to prove collusion.  Nowhere in the report does it specifically state there was no collusion.  This isn't opinion, it's concrete fact.

 

Seriously, show me where in the report it specifically says 'no collusion'.  Go on, I'll wait..

you're an idiot.

[The Red King]

Just now, Foxx said:

you're an idiot.

 

Biting rebutal.  Let's see if I can reply at your level.  Um...you're a poo-poo head!

[The Red King]

You can say 'The report did not find enough evidence to support collusion', and you would be accurate.  But that is not the same thing as saying 'The report said no collusion.'  The former suggests there is not enough evidence to support a conclusion.  The latter suggests a definitive conclusion was reached, and it wasn't.

 

Hell, the most accurate statement would be "The report did not find enough evidence to support collusion', which again isn't quite the same.

Edited July 3, 2019 by The Red King

[row_33]

5 hours ago, The Red King said:

The thread title is misleading.  At no point did the report determine or state there was no collusion.  Rather, it was their conclusion that there was not enough evidence to prove or disprove collusion.  So, the report's answer to "Was there collusion?" is simply, "I dunno.  Maybe?".  And with all the time and effort invested, that's in some ways even more frustrating then a clear, decisive yes or no.

 

At the same time, it is vexing to hear Trump and some Republicans repeatedly saying the Report confirmed no collusion when they damn well know that's a lie.  Saying you didn't get a good enough look so you can't really say if a boy stole a cookie or not does not mean the kid didn't take one.  It doesn't exonorate him.  Yet that's exactly what Trump and the Republicans are claiming, despite knowing full well it is an outright lie.  And they're doing so trusting many Americans won't actually read the report and as a result might actually buy the manure they're peddling.

 

Therefore,  no grounds to pursue the accusation of collusion.  

 

You should read how our legal system works.

 

 

Is there a crime of collusion out there?