Now That Mueller Report Is Done, Hot Takes Abound

CNN even noted that this is all a victory for President Trump. Chris Matthews and Rachel Maddow were among many in the Credentialed Media that melted down, as did Rep Eric Swalwell. And we have a Narrative forming

Here’s the Washington Post Editorial Board

Mueller has submitted his report. Now Barr must share it with the rest of us.

IT WAS the announcement that Washington has awaited for nearly two long, tweet-filled years: Attorney General William P. Barr told Congress on Friday that special counsel Robert S. Mueller III has completed his report on Russia’s involvement in the 2016 presidential election. The report is now on Mr. Barr’s desk. The question is how much of it will move from there into the hands of Congress and the public.

Though Friday’s announcement did not reveal the report’s contents, Mueller biographer Garrett M. Graff noted that there is significance in the fact that the special counsel was able to complete it relatively unhindered, and that the White House did not attempt a Nixonian purge at the Justice Department. “We shouldn’t have to celebrate something as basic as this, but it’s a sign that our system, our rule of law, and our democracy is holding — for now,” Mr. Graff said.

For now, indeed. As Mr. Barr considers what to release publicly, he must keep in mind that the Mueller inquiry is no ordinary investigation. Typically, the Justice Department is wary of revealing investigative information that did not lead to an indictment. This is the right instinct: It guards against law enforcement dragging people through the mud when prosecutors do not have enough evidence to charge them formally. But an attack on the country’s democracy — and senior officials’ response — is a national concern with unusual importance to the country’s politics and policy. Part of the point is to educate the public and reform the law to better prepare for further foreign intrusions. Mr. Mueller’s conclusions and supporting evidence must be released.

You are seeing this same thing around the left leaning opinion pages and editorials, which all seem to be the same: they, like 2020 Democrat presidential candidates, are positioning that if the full report is not released, and released quickly, it is a coverup and a “threat to our democracy.” Even though the law, as mentioned in the 3rd paragraph in the above excerpt, is meant to protect people who were investigated but found to have done nothing wrong. Kinda the way our justice system works.

Seriously, you have Adam Schiff freaking outfreaking out and stating he’ll subpoena Mueller, since he apparently knows that there is nothing in the report to support the Russia Russia Russia narrative. So far, there have been zero indictments of US citizens for collusion or anything related to the RRR narrative, but Dems are promising to continue investigating in the House. And they will be helping Trump win in 2020.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

114 Responses to “Now That Mueller Report Is Done, Hot Takes Abound”

  1. Bill Bear says:

    Porter Good wrote:

    “So far, there have been zero indictments of US citizens for collusion or anything related to the RRR narrative”

    False.

    George Papadopoulos: indicted for lying to the F.B.I. about his contacts with Russian intermediaries during the 2016 presidential race.

    Rick Gates: indicted for lying about the details of a 2013 meeting about Ukraine that Mr. Manafort had with a pro-Russian member of Congress.

    Michael Flynn: indicted for lying to the F.B.I. about conversations with the Russian ambassador.

    Sam Patten: indicted for failing to register as a foreign agent for a Russia-aligned Ukrainian political party.

    source: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/08/21/us/mueller-trump-charges.html

    Porter Good is lying.

    That’s what liars do.

    • Liljeffyatemypuppy says:

      The only appropriate response to nignorant…

      https://tinyurl.com/yda63gsn

      Trump Vindicated !!!

      https://www.thepiratescove.us/wp-content/plugins/wp-monalisa/icons/wpml_cool.gif

    • formwiz says:

      Sorry, I only see one indictment related to the campaign.

      And contacts with Russian intermediaries is not against the law.

      Not to mention the fact indictment is not conviction.

      When you have a conviction directly related to Russian activity during the ’16 campaign, let us know.

      In the interim, Golf Foxtrot Yankee.

      • Bill Bear says:

        “Sorry, I only see one indictment related to the campaign.”

        formwiz is lying, of course.

        He sees more than one such indictment — he simply refuses to admit the truth.

        That’s what liars do.

      • Bill Bear says:

        “Not to mention the fact indictment is not conviction.”

        formwiz is, of course, revealing his carefully cultivated ignorance of the facts.

        All four of the individuals that I named above were, in fact, convicted.

        • Bill589 says:

          Bill Bear appears to support the liars and their lying.
          The Left’s hate and lies all added up to Donald being innocent.

          • Bill Bear says:

            “The Left’s hate and lies all added up to Donald being innocent.”

            If hatred of and lies told about an individual added up to that individual being innocent, then Hillary Clinton would be ranked among the most innocent individuals in history.

            That’s not how reality works, of course. In the real world, guilt or innocence is ideally decided upon the evidence.

            Since no one commenting on this blog has (at the time of this writing) read the Special Counsel’s report, those commenters cannot say what if any evidence the report may contain concerning the interactions between the Trump campaign and the Russians.

    • Bill589 says:

      Bill Bear:
      Bearing false witness against others is bad for you in the long, long, long run.
      Check yourself.

    • david7134 says:

      Bill or jeff,
      Spoken like someone ignorant of the various movements in this hoax. You do seem to be as stupid and ignorant as jeff.

      You also like to throw around the term lier, which is wrong in all the cases you have stated.

  2. Bill Bear says:

    I have a direct question to ask Porter Good:

    Do you favor the release of the Special Counsel’s report to the American people?

    Kindly answer with a simple YES or NO.

    • Liljeffyatemypuppy says:

      Your answer is “shove it up your ass, POS.”
      Kindly though…
      https://www.thepiratescove.us/wp-content/plugins/wp-monalisa/icons/wpml_cool.gif

    • Dana R. Pico says:

      Jeffery Keene asked:

      Do you favor the release of the Special Counsel’s report to the American people?

      Kindly answer with a simple YES or NO.

      It will be released, and if not released, leaked by someone. But yes, I favor its release.

      And since you seem to feel the obligation to use our host’s real name — something he doesn’t conceal, though he chooses to use a pseudonym — I feel it only right that I use yours. You’ll note that I posted this under my full name, so you have nothing about which to combitch.

      • Elwood P. Dowd says:

        Are you sure you have your story straight?

        Is it possible, as TEACH pointed out previously, that you are mistaken?

        • formwiz says:

          We knew Harvey would be beside herself in the face of Mule Ears’ betrayal, but attacking the commentariat is asking for it.

          All Jessica wants is to see how many lives can be ruined by innuendo if the full report is released.

          Maybe somebody ought to leak Jessica’s life story so he knows how it feels.

          • Elwood P. Dowd says:

            Not sure what The Wiz (it) is talking about. More randomly generated sentences.

            At the risk of encouraging ‘it’, whom did Mr. Mueller betray?

            The report was just yesterday sent to the AG, prompting the right to inexplicably claim the report proves Trump’s innocence.

            We do hope that the AG shares the full document with Congressional committees so that they have the necessary information.

    • Dana R. Pico says:

      Why, I have to ask, has our esteemed host chosen to use a pseudonym for his posts, even though he reveals his real name on his About Me page? Well, I cannot speak for our host, but when I started The First Street Journal, I chose to refer to myself as the Editor, even though I did not conceal my real name, and you can see my real name in the left hand sidebar where my tweets are listed.

      I chose to use my ‘pseudonym’ because I was employed by a private company, and it was not fair to that company for anyone who might Google my name for business reasons to attribute my views to my employer. Our host has, in his far right sidebar on the main page:

      All posts here are my views. None represent my employer. If ye can prove me wrong, so be it.

      Thus it would seem like our host had at least similar concerns to mine.

      Yet Mr Keene has developed a fetish of using our host’s real name, his real full name, not just his first name or his last, and I am curious as to why. After all, Mr Keene seems unwilling to use his own real name here! The only conclusion up with which I can come is that Mr Keene is attempting to cause our host some sort of trouble in his employment. https://www.thepiratescove.us/wp-content/plugins/wp-monalisa/icons/wpml_negative.gif

      Now, Mr Keene, if he has told us the truth, owns his own company, and thus can’t be disciplined or terminated for what he spews says here. Mr Keene is, he tells us, wealthy, and thus lacks the vulnerability our host might have. Why is it that a hostile commenter whom our host continues to tolerate would wish to expose our host to possible employment problems?

      Well, I’m retired now, so I no longer have to worry about harming my employer or possibly facing discipline or termination for what I write online, and thus I can not only understand what might have motivated our host, but have been freed from such concerns myself. And thus I can point out the problems involved with Mr Bear’s/ Dowd’s/ Bodine’s/ Keene’s newfound fetish.

      This is something he should cease.

      • Bill Bear says:

        My name is not Jeffery Keene.

        But I do hope that Dana R. Pico will continue to pretend to knowledge that he does not possess. Nothing is so amusing as a self-discrediting regressive.

      • Elwood P. Dowd says:

        dana,

        And your target might conclude that you, TEACH, dave and The Puppy are trying to harm him.

        The Puppy and TEACH even posted an address they claimed was related to their target.

        Why would they do that? Is it possible they thought someone might actually visit that address?

        But we agree that TEACH should enforce his own rules and stop enabling these potentially harmful behaviors.

        You and others started attributing comments from Elwood to another commenter of a similar bent. TEACH corrected you but you’ve continued, and now have even upped the ante.

    • formwiz says:

      Do you favor all documents relating to the cover-up by the DOJ of the Hildabeast’s campaign and the prosecution to the fullest extent of the law of all involved?

      Kindly answer with a simple YES or NO.

  3. PapaMAS says:

    One could say it is a great, big nothingburger, but it accomplished what it was intended to do: keep attention off Hillary’s misdeeds.

    • Bill Bear says:

      “One could say it is a great, big nothingburger”

      Yes, one could say that… but if one did, one would be lying, just as PapaMAS is.

  4. Kye says:

    If you guys think this is over just because they couldn’t find anything illegal or just because they couldn’t indict anyone for an actual Russian crime you don’t know the New DemCom Party. They will not rest until the ONLY party is the DemCom Party and until our Republic is reduced to Venezuelan utopia.

    They will now double down on AG attacks on Trump for everything from age 10 up. They will quadruple their efforts to eliminate the Electoral College and turn the Republic into a democratic clusterfu*k. They will be stuffing the ballot box in 2020 like they never stuffed it before to try and make sure they never lose another election. They will have illegal, dead people, felon, foreigners, multi-voters and trunks full of ballots waiting to be “found” when needed. Not to mention scores of lawyers in every state ready to sue the minute the polls close.

    Now the immoral and contemptible DemComs will start yammering for the release of the total Special Council’s Report knowing full well it includes private information on private citizens, secret and sensitive information and confidential national security information and may identify innocent people who should remain unknown. But that’s how communists work:destroy everybody and everything.

    It’s getting close to the time for Trump to start handing out pardons like candy and spit in the face of the DoJ, FBI and the other Obama/Hillary Deep State communists.

    Right now the DemComs are shifting their attention to the damage done to Dig Fake Media by their constant Russia, Russia, Russia mantra and the parade of leftist “experts” who spent the last two years beclowning themselves with outlandish charges of conspiracy to treason and repetition of the constant mantra which now is exposed as a BIG FU*KIN’ LIE.

    Will they and their “useful idiot” followers like Bill and Elwood be held accountable? I doubt it. Liars like they only project their lies onto others and keep on swimmin’ (and lyin’) with the anti-American sharks. Move on America….nothin’ to see here!

    MAGA. Winning!

    • Bill Bear says:

      “they couldn’t find anything illegal”

      Kye is lying, of course. See above.

      “or just because they couldn’t indict anyone for an actual Russian crime”

      Kye is lying, of course. See above.

      • Kye says:

        Here are the basics of the Mueller Results:

        Mueller did not indict Donald Trump Jr., Jared Kushner, or other people whose purported legal jeopardy was the subject of intense media speculation in the last year.
        Mueller did not charge anyone in the Trump campaign or circle with conspiring with Russia to fix the 2016 election, as was the subject of intense media speculation in the last year.
        Mueller did not subpoena the president, as was the subject of intense media speculation in the last year.
        The president did not fire Mueller, as was the subject of intense media speculation in the last year.
        The president did not interfere with the Mueller investigation, as was the subject of intense media speculation in the last year. In his letter to Congress, Barr noted the requirement that he notify lawmakers if top Justice Department officials ever interfered with the Mueller investigation. “There were no such instances,” Barr wrote.

        Hey asshole, citizen was indicted or imprisoned for anything having to do with what the initial investigation was about. You are the liar.

        • Bill Bear says:

          Kye knows that at least four US citizens were indicted and convicted for crimes relating to Russia’s involvement in the 2016 election.

          Yet he has deliberately chosen to lie.

          That’s what liars do.

          • formwiz says:

            He does?

            I know of none. I do know of a couple who were railroaded by Mule Ears for arguable offenses committed years ago.

            The only liar is Whiny the Poo, who has taken over for Harvey while he weeps at Mule Ears’ betrayal of him.

          • Bill589 says:

            Bear Bear knows first hand what liars do.
            He’s an accomplished one.

        • formwiz says:

          No, you’re lying because you think we’re as dumb as you are.

          Indictment without conviction is nothing, and there’s no there in your “above”.

          Nothing there that would hold up in a jury trial.

          For somebody who insists his is the side of right and intellect, it must be Hell to have to defend a cause where you can’t take a breath without lying.

          God, I love this. Maybe your next alter ego will be Pete Pissant.

  5. Dana says:

    The Editorial Board wrote:

    But an attack on the country’s democracy — and senior officials’ response — is a national concern with unusual importance to the country’s politics and policy.

    What attack on the country’s democracy? Even if everything the left alleged was true, the Russians’ “attack” was to hack and expose the e-mails of the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee. In other words, they gave American voters the truth about Hillary Clinton. How is telling the truth to the voters an attack on our democracy?

    • Bill Bear says:

      Dana has announced that he supports foreign interference in US elections.

      And here I thought that regressives were all about patriotism. I thank Dana for teaching me that regressives care not a whit for the integrity of American elections.

      • Liljeffyatemypuppy says:

        Please keep bringing the stupid, nignorant. https://www.thepiratescove.us/wp-content/plugins/wp-monalisa/icons/wpml_cool.gif

      • Kye says:

        What Dana announced is he supports the truth. Something with which radical DemComs have replaced with blind partisanship. All they have is hate and that don’t seem to be workin’ no mo.

        Must suck to invest two years in a treasonous coup against your lawful president just to find out you are lead by liars.

      • Dana says:

        I can’t recall; could you post again where you had criticized President Obama for attempting to get Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu defeated during his last re-election campaign?

        And how, exactly, is exposing the truth about Hillary Clinton and the Democrats a bad thing?

        I’ll say it again: if there really were Russian shenanigans, and they were the thing that tipped the election to keep Hillary Clinton a private citizen, we owe Vladimir Putin a debt of gratitude which can never be fully repaid.

      • formwiz says:

        Well, since Mule Ears found no evidence of collusion, there was no interference.

        Unless you want to count Teddy Kennedy that time.

        And here I thought that regressives were all about patriotism. I thank Dana for teaching me that regressives care not a whit for the integrity of American elections.

        You didn’t need Dana. You know you love it when Demos try to get foreign powers to influence our elections.

        And, yes, most Progressives call themselves that because they really are regressive. They’d love to return to those thrilling days of yeasteryear when Commies murdered dissidents by the tens of millions.

      • Bill589 says:

        Bill Bear:
        Bearing false witness against others is bad for you in the long, long, long run.
        Check yourself.

  6. Liljeffyatemypuppy says:

    They struck at the king and missed.
    Time for some sweet, sweet retribution to begin. https://www.thepiratescove.us/wp-content/plugins/wp-monalisa/icons/wpml_cool.gif

  7. Liljeffyatemypuppy says:

    This is even better than the night Trump won the election.
    https://www.thepiratescove.us/wp-content/plugins/wp-monalisa/icons/wpml_cool.gif

  8. Dana says:

    On January 5, 2019, Mr Bodine wrote:

    tRump will not be president at the end of 2019. Believe me. Mark my word. You tRumpitistas are whistling past the graveyard, and we all understand why. Your hero has committed felonies.

    Well, there are still nine months and eight days in which Jeffery’s statement could still come true, but ‘twould seem that if Mr Trump has committed felonies, Robert Mueller couldn’t find them.

    • Elwood P. Dowd says:

      I actually did type that! You got one right.

      How do you know if Trump committed felonies or not? Have you read the report? Mr. Mueller is a conservative lawman and believes in and understands the rules, including policies of the DOJ. You should crow now, but this is not over.

      Individual One is still president.

      What does Trump know that you don’t? Why isn’t HE crowing?

      As predicted Trump is negotiating (may have already negotiated) his resignation in exchange for prosecutorial discretion for him, Jr and Kushner.

      • Liljeffyatemypuppy says:

        Putin’s puppet… LOL!
        Mumbling stumbling bumbling nignorant…
        Hillary lost, get over it.
        https://www.thepiratescove.us/wp-content/plugins/wp-monalisa/icons/wpml_cool.gif

        • formwiz says:

          They should, but they won’t, because they’re sooo much smarter.

          As predicted Trump is negotiating (may have already negotiated) his resignation

          He is? Wow!!!!

          And how do all your little voices know this.

      • formwiz says:

        How do you know if Trump committed felonies or not?

        If he’d committed felonies (or misdemeanors), Mule Ears would have had him up before a grand jury, genius.

        Mr. Mueller is a conservative lawman and believes in and understands the rules, including policies of the DOJ. You should crow now, but this is not over.

        Individual One is still president.

        Mule Ears is a career screw up who’s always done the Demos’ bidding.

        And it is over. You keep whining about is just going to make more people either vote R or not vote Duh next year.

        The only thing you got right is that Donald John Trump is President. Get used to saying that because you’ve got 6 more years of it.

  9. Bill Bear says:

    Kye wrote:

    “Bill has once again confirmed his support of failed government coups.”

    No coup has been attempted against the current US government.

    Kye is lying — again.

    That’s what liars do.

    • formwiz says:

      You forgot “All you have is hate”.

      And it’s becoming pretty universally accepted that the Deep State attempted a coup to drive Trump from office.

      Too bad The God Emperor of the Cherry Blossom Throne was a better man than all of them put together

      I love the smell of schaudenfreude in the afternoon.

      • Bill Bear says:

        “And it’s becoming pretty universally accepted that the Deep State attempted a coup to drive Trump from office.”

        formwiz is, of course, lying. There is no such “universal” acceptance of that fable — except, of course, among low-info regressives like formwiz himself.

        • formwiz says:

          When a hardcore NeverTrumper like Wesley Pruden calls it a coup, it’s a coup.

          And there’s plenty of acceptance. You just don’t like the idea all your lies will probably elect Trump to a second term.

    • formwiz says:

      Denizens of the previous Administration conspired to have the will of the people overturned.

      That’s a coup.

      And calling it a lie doesn’t change that. In fact, all you do is call people liars without a shred of evidence to back you up.

      That makes you the liar.

  10. Bill Bear says:

    “I know of none. I do know of a couple who were railroaded by Mule Ears for arguable offenses committed years ago.”

    The ignorance of #regressives like formwiz is, of course, legendary — and probative of nothing but their own determination to aggressively cultivate their own nescience.

    There is no factual basis for the claim that those indicted by the Special Counsel were “railroaded”. Careful investigation uncovered evidence, which was presented in court and ruled upon. In many cases, the perpetrators chose to plead guilty.

    Like Trump’s blatherings, formwiz’ remarks are designed to erode confidence in the American system of justice. In the world of the regressive, only the word of the Dear Leader can be trusted.

    • formwiz says:

      For offenses having nothing to do with the assigned issue?

      The ignorance of #regressives like formwiz is, of course, legendary — and probative of nothing but their own determination to aggressively cultivate their own nescience.

      Yeah, I’m so ignorant I have 2 degrees and a grad certificate.

      And I beat your scrawny ass every crack out of the box.

      There is no factual basis for the claim that those indicted by the Special Counsel were “railroaded”. Careful investigation uncovered evidence, which was presented in court and ruled upon. In many cases, the perpetrators chose to plead guilty.

      No, they were threatened to co-operate or there would be enough charges throw at them to keep them in prison for 80 years.

      Mule Ears has nothing to show for all that money wasted except for charging Manafort with offenses that would have gotten anybody else a fine.

      He was railroaded. And perhaps, if the gods are kind, it will happen to you and yours.

      Like Trump’s blatherings, formwiz’ remarks are designed to erode confidence in the American system of justice. In the world of the regressive, only the word of the Dear Leader can be trusted.

      All I do is state the facts. All Whiny the Poo does is repeat what the trollmassas tell her.

      • Bill Bear says:

        “No, they were threatened to co-operate or there would be enough charges throw at them to keep them in prison for 80 years.”

        If formwiz has evidence that any of the convicted perpetrators were improperly threartened by prosecutors, he is of course free to cite that evidence.

        “All I do is state the facts.”

        False. formwiz has already been proven a liar, several times over.

      • Bill Bear says:

        “…nothing to show for all that money wasted except for charging Manafort with offenses that would have gotten anybody else a fine.”

        False on two counts.

        1) Tax evasion, bank fraud, and witness tampering are all serious crimes, and all are punishable by jail time.

        2) The prosecutions stemming from the Special Counsel’s investigation go far beyond Manafort. Several dozen individuals have been charged and/or convicted.

        formwiz is lying again.

        That’s what liars do.

        • formwiz says:

          It can or it can be punishable with fines. Mule Ears wanted somebody to spill something so he went with jail time, something reserved, up until Zippy weaponized the DOJ, for mobsters only.

          Even FBI vets didn’t like it.

          The prosecutions stemming from the Special Counsel’s investigation go far beyond Manafort.

          Yeah, a lot of Russians Mule Ears showed no interest in prosecuting and Cohen whose case was dumped off on the US Attorney in Manhattan when they found he had nothing of substance to tell them.

          But keep it up. As I told the other split in your (I use the word loosely) personality, all you’re doing is making the election a bigger win for The Donald. Even the Establishment Demos says so.

          But, if you can’t wait for another ’72 or (dare I hope?) ’84, go right ahead.

          I’d love to see a 50 state sweep.

          • Bill Bear says:

            “It can or it can be punishable with fines.”

            A few minutes ago, formwiz said that anybody else would have been levied a fine rather than sent to prison for Manafort’s crimes. Now that he knows his lie is exposed, he is desperate to spin what he said into something else.

            It’s not working. formwiz lied, he knows he lied, and he knows his lie has been exposed for what it is.

  11. Kye says:

    I don’t expect the people who support an illegal coup to acknowledge it. But you could say you’re sorry, Mueller proved you wrong. At least admit that every time you accused Trump of something it as all a choreographed lie from the Red Media and DemComs. I mean, Mueller says so!

    Another thing both you and Bill need to realize if you call everyone around you a liar every day either you’re the liar and won’t admit it or you should go somewhere else where you needn’t put up with liars.

    Calling everybody you disagree with a liar has now got about the same impact as when you call them “Raaaacist”. You’ve so overused the word so much you now sound retarded saying it and it’s lost all meaning.

    Move on to “white supremacist” like Bill did for awhile. Even though he has shown himself not to know the meaning of the phrase at least he TRIES to be different. You’re just a broken record. But Bill is rapidly trying to join you so there is that.

    • Bill Bear says:

      “But you could say you’re sorry, Mueller proved you wrong… I mean, Mueller says so!”

      Kye has not read the Special Counsel’s report. Therefore, he cannot know what the report does or does not prove.

      • formwiz says:

        He knows it said no more indictments, so you lost. So you’re wrong.

        If there was a there there, it might be different, but there is no joy in Trollville, Bungling Bob has struck out.

      • Kye says:

        I didn’t say the Report proved you wrong, I said Mueller proved you wrong by not indicting anyone else. No wonder you accuse everyone of lying you can’t read. Now be a man and admit you were wrong.

        • Bill Bear says:

          If Kye can cite a specific statement of mine that he wants me to admit that I was wrong about, then perhaps we can discuss that statement. I am not prepared to make some general, non-specific admission that I was “wrong”.

  12. formwiz says:

    If hatred of and lies told about an individual added up to that individual being innocent, then Hillary Clinton would be ranked among the most innocent individuals in history.

    Except she’s been caught with her hand imn the till a few too many times.

    That’s not how reality works, of course. In the real world, guilt or innocence is ideally decided upon the evidence.

    Unless Lefties are doing the judging, then it’s purely who’s on what side.

    Since no one commenting on this blog has (at the time of this writing) read the Special Counsel’s report, those commenters cannot say what if any evidence the report may contain concerning the interactions between the Trump campaign and the Russians.

    Neither can Whiny. She’s just spouting platitudes to cover the fact her side lost.

    • formwiz says:

      Not sure what The Wiz (it) is talking about. More randomly generated sentences.

      At the risk of encouraging ‘it’, whom did Mr. Mueller betray?

      The report was just yesterday sent to the AG, prompting the right to inexplicably claim the report proves Trump’s innocence.

      We do hope that the AG shares the full document with Congressional committees so that they have the necessary information.

      Well, he said no more indictments, so that would show no more prosecution, so he’s innocent. Unless you know of more evidence, that’s it.

      Mule Ears betrayed you. Remember all those taunts about how he had the goods? How he would release it just before the election.., no, wait, it was after Congress was…, no, we weren’t sure, but he would have the evidence.

      Except that he doesn’t. You’re making like Rachel Madcow, crying on the air.

      Denial. Not just water flowing into the Mediterranean at Alexandria, is it?

      And sharing with Congress only means more people will get tired of you. More people will get angry as innocent people are railroaded. More people will agree it’s been a witch hunt. You’ll lose the House again next year when The Donald (as the Democrat insiders concede) is re-elected.

      So keep shooting off your mouth. It’s more states in the bag next year.

      • Bill Bear says:

        “Well, he said no more indictments, so that would show no more prosecution, so he’s innocent.”

        formwiz is, of course, lying. Not choosing to indict an individual does not automatically mean that the individual is innocent. It can also mean that while there is evidence of wrongdoing, that evidence is not considered sufficient to convict.

        Aso, it is DOJ policy not to indict a sitting President. That, too, does not mean that a President is innocent of any wrongdoing.

        • Liljeffyatemypuppy says:

          Well it certainly does mean he’s not guilty of any wrongdoing.

          To the woods… you’re FOS, nignorant. https://www.thepiratescove.us/wp-content/plugins/wp-monalisa/icons/wpml_cool.gif

        • david7134 says:

          Bill or jeff
          No you are the liar. I don’t know what problems you have, but you need help. Winning, MAGA.

  13. Jl says:

    So let’s see-Hillary lost all by herself? If only there were some clue 2 yrs ago that this would be the case….like, lack of any evidence from the very beginning?…

  14. Bill Bear says:

    Mueller mystery: Does “no indictments” mean “no collusion”? Absolutely not

    http://salon.com/2019/03/24/mueller-mystery-does-no-indictments-mean-no-collusion-absolutely-not/

    So Robert Mueller’s report has been filed. As I write this, we are still waiting for Attorney General William Barr to reveal what he calls its “principal conclusions” to leaders of the judiciary committees in Congress. Whether those turn out to actually be “conclusive” remains to be seen, but it’s safe to say that whatever Barr conveys to Capitol Hill will not provide the level of detail about the outstanding questions to which the public deserves to have answers.

    The Department of Justice has reported that there are no new indictments forthcoming from the special counsel’s office, which many people assume means that Mueller concluded that Trump and his inner circle did not collude with Russia during the 2016 election campaign. That is incorrect.

    We know that the DOJ has determined that sitting presidents can’t be indicted. That’s not settled constitutional law, but it is a federal policy that Mueller was bound to observe. So the lack of charges against President Trump doesn’t mean much. But the conventional wisdom at this moment holds that if there had been any proof of conspiracy, Donald Trump Jr. and Jared Kushner and perhaps others would have been indicted by Mueller’s team, so the evidence of conspiracy must not be there. That may be true, but we don’t know that at this point, and don’t know why Mueller may have reached that conclusion, without seeing the details of the report.

    The fact that there were no indictments in a counterintelligence investigation would not in itself be unusual. The purpose isn’t prosecution — it’s fact-finding and removing the threat. Not all threats are criminal. For instance, people who might be unwittingly compromised could have their security clearances withdrawn or be fired from a government job, even though they haven’t necessarily committed a crime. If someone who is a serious threat to national security has committed other crimes, the feds might choose to indict him or her for those other offenses, rather than the ones that might expose national security secrets. There are several people enmeshed in this Trump scandal for whom those examples might serve.

    As Frank Figliuzzi, the former assistant director of the FBI for counterintelligence explained on MSNBC on Saturday:

    “Counterintelligence is the chess game in the FBI. It’s the most cerebral part of the FBI and it’s nuanced and subtle. … It could be, and by the way, this is the case of the majority of FBI counterintelligence investigations, that you do not end up with a criminal prosecution but rather an incredibly nuanced case that someone has been compromised, that someone attempted to get assistance from a foreign adversary. But they are winks and nods. … So Mueller may have said, “Look if it’s not airtight, I’m not charging, but I’m going to explain it in a report,” and I think that’s what we should expect.”

    As I wrote the other day, regardless of whether all of this is explained in Mueller’s report to the Justice Department, by law he will have to report his findings to the intelligence committees, just as former acting FBI director Andrew McCabe was obligated to inform the “gang of eight” congressional leaders that he was opening the counterintelligence investigation in the first place.

    We already knew there was next to no possibility that Trump himself would be indicted while he’s in office. That has long been his get-out-of-jail-free card. But none of that means that the information gleaned from the counterintelligence investigation won’t implicate Trump and his cronies in a Russian plot to disrupt the election. It may be, for instance, that it wasn’t a criminal conspiracy, just a monumental lack of basic ethics and a case of massive stupidity.

    After all, there is evidence of collusion already in the public domain. We know that Donald Trump was aware in the summer of 2016 that the Russians were hacking into his rival’s emails, and he egged them on in public. He has continued to deny that they did it, even to this day. Trump was thrilled to have Vladimir Putin on his side and believed that made him some kind of foreign policy genius. There was a time when Republicans would have been hysterical at the prospect of a presidential candidate being so accommodating to foreign interference, especially if the Russians were involved. But Trump’s behavior has been completely out in the open. We’ve watched it unfold in real time and virtually the entire Republican Party thinks that’s perfectly fine.

    We also know that Donald Trump was compromised. It’s been revealed that throughout the first half of the campaign he had Michael Cohen, who was then executive vice president of the Trump Organization, along with Donald Trump Jr. and Ivanka Trump, working on a potentially hugely profitable deal to build a Trump Tower in Moscow. This was an outrageous thing to be doing at all while running for president, but he made it much worse by lying about it in public for many months well into his presidency. If you want to know why that was such a risky thing to do, just look back at the case of Michael Flynn.

    Remember that Flynn was ostensibly fired for lying to Vice President Mike Pence about calls he made during the transition to the Russian ambassador suggesting that Trump would lift sanctions imposed on Russia over the apparent election interference. Remember that Acting Attorney General Sally Yates went directly to the White House, in the early days of the Trump administration, to warn officials about Flynn. That was because the FBI and Justice Department were worried about the fact that the Russians knew Flynn was lying and could potentially use that to blackmail him. Remember that Flynn, at least for a few weeks, was national security adviser to the president of the United States.

    Exactly the same dynamic existed between Russia and Trump: They knew he was lying about having no business in Russia, and Trump knew they knew he was lying. He was downright obsequious toward Putin during the campaign, likely still hoping to get the “Moscow project” built if he lost the election (as he fully expected to). Once he won, Trump was seriously compromised. His behavior toward Putin as president, the private meetings and the submissive behavior in Helsinki all point to Trump’s knowledge that the Russians had leverage over him. For all we know, that’s not the whole story. Indeed, that’s likely just one of the compromising lies Trump has told that has become public. He lies all the time.

    Those are just two examples of Trump’s corrupt and unethical behavior toward Russia. Neither of them is likely prosecutable, even if Trump weren’t protected by the Justice Department policy that holds a president can’t be indicted. It’s a national security problem for which the only remedy is to fire the president — aka impeach him or defeat him at the ballot box.

    Sadly, since all this is already on the public record, if it hasn’t convinced Republicans that the president is a serious threat to the nation it’s hard to imagine what would change their minds. Nonetheless, Congress must pursue this no matter what Mueller decides.

    Whatever Barr chooses on Sunday or in the days ahead, it will be largely up to the Democrats on Capitol Hill to pursue all the open questions — and there are many of them. Public hearings are essential. People need to be able to hear directly from the participants in all this. There is so little trust in government institutions in America at the moment that it’s vitally important that the public be able to see and hear directly from the people involved in this investigation. Whether Congress holds impeachment hearings or simply does the oversight that was so sorely lacking in the first two years of Trump’s term, the people of this country can’t hold another presidential election without knowing what happened in the last one. A democracy can’t function like this.

    • Liljeffyatemypuppy says:

      From the AG report:
      “The Special Counsel’s investigation did not find that the Trump campaign or anyone associated with it conspired or coordinated with Russia in its efforts to influence the 2016 U.S. presidential election.”

      Does get any more straightforward than that.

      To the woods, you’re full of shit, nignorant.

  15. david7134 says:

    Bill,
    Sorry, you are wrong. Really am impressed with your prose and the length of it, but it is meaningless and mostly wrong. Bar released more information and the relationship between Trump and Russia is nada, zero. They left open obstruction, which is zero as we have big Rob recommending the firing of Commey. Trump is The best president and now he can continue to try and clean up the destruction of Obama and put Hillary in jail.

    • Bill Bear says:

      “the relationship between Trump and Russia is nada, zero.”

      david7134 is lying, of course — just as Trump did.

      Trump and Giuliani’s story on Trump Tower Moscow project just fell apart

      http://thinkprogress.org/leaks-show-trump-signed-off-on-trump-tower-moscow-project-591afd36fc3d/

      A leaked 2015 letter shows that Donald Trump signed off on the intent to begin negotiations over building a Trump Tower in Moscow, days after the president’s lawyer claimed on TV that no such signature exists.

      The letter of intent, obtained by CNN, was signed by the then-presidential candidate on October 28, 2015, around the same time that Trump began to speak positively about Russian President Vladimir Putin.

      The deal, which was eventually scrapped, would have opened up negotiations over Trump properties in the heart of Moscow, and included a hotel spa named after the president’s daughter, Ivanka. It would also have yielded the Trump administration a $4 million upfront fee with no upfront costs.

      On Sunday, Rudy Giuliani, the president’s lawyer, admitted that the letter existed, but firmly maintained that “no one signed it.” Mere days later, however, Giuliani backtracked, telling the Daily News that Trump had actually signed the letter, but that it didn’t matter because it was “bullshit” and the letter didn’t go anywhere.

      Trump has repeatedly claimed that he had nothing to do with any sort of investments in Russia, making 14 statements in between July 2016 and November 2018 in which he denied any involvement. “I have nothing to do with Russia,” he said during a July 2016 press conference. “How many times do I have to say that?” Prior to his inauguration in January 2017, he said “I have no deals, I have no loans and I have no dealings [with Russia].”

      https://youtu.be/Cc_t9R15q68

      That line of defense, however, changed after the president’s longtime lawyer and confidant Michael Cohen was sentenced last week to 36 months in prison. He was also sentenced to two months for lying to investigators about the proposed Trump Tower Moscow project.

      Cohen has also cooperated extensively with Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into alleged collusion, where he has claimed that he made Donald Trump personally aware of the project.

      “Michael had a lengthy substantive conversation with the personal assistant to a Kremlin official following his outreach in January 2016, engaged in additional communications concerning the project as late as June 2016, and kept Client-1 [Donald Trump] apprised of these communications,” the memorandum filed in court on November 30 reads.

      Cohen’s admissions, and the memorandum, have forced Trump to change tactics. The same day that the memorandum was filed, Trump tweeted that he had, in fact, “lightly looked” at a building “somewhere in Russia” which was all “very legal & very cool.”

      Donald J. Trump
      @realDonaldTrump Oh, I get it! I am a very good developer, happily living my life, when I see our Country going in the wrong direction (to put it mildly). Against all odds, I decide to run for President & continue to run my business-very legal & very cool, talked about it on the campaign trail…
      5:52 AM – Nov 30, 2018

      Donald J. Trump
      @realDonaldTrump
      ….Lightly looked at doing a building somewhere in Russia. Put up zero money, zero guarantees and didn’t do the project. Witch Hunt!
      5:59 AM – Nov 30, 2018

      “We had a position to possibly do a deal, to build a building of some kind in Moscow,” Trump told reporters prior to travelling to the G20 summit in Argentina last month. “There would be nothing wrong if I did do it. I was running my business while I was campaigning.”

      • formwiz says:

        If it had, Trump would be up on charges.

        You lose.

        Again.

        That’s what losers do.

      • david7134 says:

        Bill or jeff,
        The use of the term lying is only effective if the people you address it to respect you or hold your opinion in regard. I am afraid to tell you that you are nothing but a little shit. So, I do not value your opinion. Also the constant use indicates mental instability. Finally, you have a very long dissertation that is senseless. Go see your shrink.

  16. Kye says:

    It doesn’t matter who “colluded” since collusion isn’t illegal. It matters who conspired and no one did. You radical anti American leftists couldn’t take the results of the damn election so you initiated a phony, fake investigation. Now you don’t like the results of YOUR OWN INVESTIGATION. At what point do you little bitches stop whining and move on?

  17. Bill Bear says:

    “It doesn’t matter who “colluded” since collusion isn’t illegal.”

    As usual, Kye’s exceptionally limited capacity for understanding fails to account for the subtleties of the real world.

    What Is Collusion? Is It Even a Crime?
    part 1 of 3

    http://politico.com/magazine/story/2017/07/12/what-is-collusion-215366

    President Donald Trump has repeatedly denied colluding with the Russian government during the 2016 campaign. Yet, the revelation of a meeting last year—between his son, his campaign chairman, his son-in-law and a Russian lawyer who promised damaging information about Hillary Clinton from the Russian government—suggests that the question of collusion is an open one; according to emails arranging the meeting, Trump’s son Donald Jr. was aware of that promise and said in response, “I love it.” And, of course, special counsel Robert Mueller is still investigating this very matter.

    But what precisely would constitute collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign, and have we actually seen evidence of it so far? We asked legal experts—former federal prosecutors, law professors and more—to help make sense of the situation based on the evidence that has been made public so far. Most were quick to note that collusion itself is not a specific federal crime—what matters is what kind of cooperation might have taken place and in what way. As to whether collusion did occur or a crime was committed, they said the jury is still out.

    ‘Stop using “collusion” as a short-hand for criminality’

    Paul Rosenzweig is former deputy assistant secretary for policy at the Department of Homeland Security and founder of Red Branch Consulting.

    Collusion is not a federal crime (except in the unique case of antitrust law), so we should all just stop using “collusion” as a short-hand for criminality. But that doesn’t mean that the alleged cooperation between the Trump campaign and Russia is of no criminal interest. To the contrary, if true, it may have violated any number of criminal prohibitions.

    For example, if Donald Trump Jr. sought “dirt” on Hillary Clinton from the Russians, he might be charged with conspiring to violate the election laws of the United States, which prohibit foreign nationals from contributing any “thing of value” to an electoral campaign. The opposition dirt is at least plausibly a thing of value. And to the extent that the Trump campaign aided, abetted or advised the Russians (or any other hackers) about what would be most useful to steal from the Democrats or how best to enhance the impact of their release, they may well have violated the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.

    Of course, none of this excuses the apparent cover-up, which is often as bad as the original crime. Lying to the federal government in your registration forms or your security application is a false statement. Using the wires to perpetrate your crime is often wire fraud. In short, let’s stop talking about “collusion” and instead talk about real crimes that may, or may not, be proven—violations of election law, computer hacking, false statements and wire fraud.

    Collusion ‘doesn’t accurately describe either the criminal and counterintelligence aspects of what we know’

    Asha Rangappa is an associate dean at Yale Law School and a former special agent in the Counterintelligence Division of the FBI.

    The word “collusion” has been a terrible one to use in the Trump-Russia saga, since it doesn’t accurately describe either the criminal or counterintelligence aspects of what we know. On the criminal side, the word that would best describe an agreement between the Trump campaign and Russia to commit any number of crimes (say, election fraud) would be “conspiracy”—something that the recent release of Donald Trump Jr.’s email chain might support.

    On the counterintelligence side, collusion is best described by the word “recruitment.” The aim of a foreign intelligence service is to find and convince individuals to help them achieve intelligence objectives. In the case of the election, the question is whether Russia was able to recruit American citizens, including people in the Trump campaign, to help them sway the outcome in Donald Trump’s favor. We are less likely to get direct public evidence of this since most of the information obtained by the FBI about Russia’s network and tactics will be classified unless someone is prosecuted for a crime.

    But we have some clues that Russia may have been successful, such as Paul Manafort and Michael Flynn officially registering as foreign agents under the Foreign Agent Registration Act, or reports of a FISA order against Carter Page, which could only be obtained by showing a court that he was “knowingly engaged in foreign intelligence activities” on behalf of a foreign power. Even so, the criminal penalties for spying for a foreign intelligence service in non-defense-related areas are fairly weak, and I expect that Robert Mueller and the FBI will likely use any prosecutorial leverage they have over these individuals to get people higher up the chain for potentially more egregious criminal violations. The story is definitely not over, so stay tuned.

    ‘Collusion is the perfect word to cover such crimes’

    John W. Dean was Richard Nixon’s White House counsel. He served a four-month sentence for his role in Watergate.

    It was the fake legal analysis by Fox News in June—claiming that “collusion” with a foreign government violated no law—that prompted me to look. Surely Fox knows it fooled only fools. Collusion is the descriptive word the news media has settled on to cover many potential illegal actions by the Trump campaign, which could range from aiding and abetting (18 USC 2) to conspiracy per se (18 USC 371) to conspiring to violate several potentially applicable laws like: 18 USC 1030—fraud and related activity in connection with computers; 18 USC 1343—wire fraud; or 52 USC 30121—contributions and donations by foreign nationals. Also, 18 USC 2381—for, contrary to a widespread belief that there must be a declared war, the Justice Department as recently as 2006 indicted for “aid and comfort” to our enemies, the form of collusion better known as treason. Collusion is the perfect word to cover such crimes, pejorative and inclusive.

    ‘Legally it’s not enough for an associate of the president to work together with a Russian’

    Renato Mariotti is a former federal prosecutor who handled many obstruction cases. He is now a partner at Thompson Coburn LLP.

    Although “collusion” is a word that has been thrown around a lot lately, it doesn’t have any specific legal meaning. What matters legally is whether someone in the Trump campaign joined a conspiracy, aided and abetted a crime, or actively concealed a crime. None of these legal concepts is complicated. A conspiracy is just a legal term for an agreement to commit a crime. You aid and abet a crime if you know about criminal activity and actively try to make it succeed. There is also a crime called “misprision of felony” that means you know that a felony has been committed and you actively work to conceal the crime.

    So legally it’s not enough for an associate of the president to work together with a Russian—the American would need to work with a Russian to commit a crime, to aid a Russian in committing a crime or to conceal a crime committed by a Russian. One crime that has been discussed at length in the media is the hacking of servers in the United States and subsequent release of emails via WikiLeaks. Anyone who aided in the hacking of those servers committed a crime.

    But that isn’t the only crime that has been alluded to in press reports. Recently Donald Trump Jr. admitted that he met with a Russian attorney to obtain damaging information about Hillary Clinton. If he or someone else knowingly and willfully solicited a contribution from a foreign national in order to aid the Trump campaign, that would be a crime. Similarly, receiving property that you know is stolen is a federal crime if the value of that property is at least $5,000. It’s unclear whether leaked emails would suffice, but I suspect that the Clinton campaign would have paid far more than $5,000 to prevent their release. It would also be a crime for someone to offer to act in an official capacity, by repealing a law or discontinuing sanctions against Russia, in exchange for something of value.

    It’s important to keep in mind that what we know so far is very limited. While Trump Jr. recently confirmed that he met with an attorney who was connected with the Russian government, little is known about what was said at that meeting. In the months to come, I expect Robert Mueller and his team to interview everyone involved and gather documents, emails and other communications in order to obtain the fullest possible picture of what happened. This investigation will take significant time to complete, and it’s best to wait for all the evidence before coming to conclusions.

    • Bill Bear says:

      What Is Collusion? Is It Even a Crime? (part 2)

      http://politico.com/magazine/story/2017/07/12/what-is-collusion-215366

      ‘The more likely crimes have occurred through false and misleading statements’

      Laurie L. Levenson is professor of law and David W. Burcham chair of ethical advocacy at Loyola Law School. She was formerly an assistant U.S. attorney in Los Angeles.

      I honestly don’t know whether the so-called collusion in this case was a crime, in part, because this story keeps morphing. Trying to get dirt on an opposing candidate is not necessarily a crime. However, making false statements to government officials can be. I think the more likely crimes have occurred through false and misleading statements to government officials throughout this probe, but Robert Mueller will have to determine whether that occurred. Generally, it is the easiest crime to prove.

      Finally, it is good to keep in mind that there is no crime of “collusion” in the federal code. The applicable crime is conspiracy under 18 USC Sec. 371. That would cover a conspiracy by two or more persons to violate a law of the United States or “to defraud the United States.” You need an election law specialist to tell you whether asking the Russians for negative information on Hillary Clinton violated federal law. The question of whether there has been a scheme “to defraud the United States” is a more interesting one. Generally, that portion of the statute is used for financial crimes. However, who knows what a creative prosecutor might seek to use it for?

      ‘It is not clear that it provides a basis for criminal prosecution’

      William Jeffress is a white-collar defense attorney at Baker Botts. He represented I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby in the Valerie Plame affair.

      If the Trump campaign conspired with or assisted the Russians in hacking the emails of John Podesta or the Democratic National Committee, the crime is clear. But beyond that, it is anything but clear. We do not have a federal statute punishing corrupt efforts to influence an election, unless done by particular prohibited acts such as vote buying or illegal political contributions. That is undoubtedly wise, because such a law would spur frequent criminal complaints against opponents by losers and even some winners of elections.

      There is a statute punishing conspiracies to defraud the United States, including conspiracies to interfere with a governmental function by fraud. Special counsel Robert Mueller will surely focus on whether a conspiracy to interfere with the right to honest elections is a crime, but the question is greatly complicated by the 100-year-old Gradwell case; that case refused to apply the statute to interference in elections for senators and representatives, because the Constitution and laws assign to the states, not the federal government, the regulation of elections for those offices. It would not be a large step to say the same is true of the election of the Electoral College in presidential elections.

      Collusion with the Russians in attempting to affect the outcome of the presidential election is a serious political scandal, but I must say it is not clear that it provides a basis for criminal prosecution. It may be that, like other investigations in the past, people may get in more trouble for false and misleading statements to investigators than for the underlying conduct.

      ‘A nothing burger with some secret sauce’

      Saikrishna Prakash is James Monroe distinguished professor of law at the University of Virginia.

      There are tidbits worth investigating here. For one, why did the convener of the meeting say that the meeting was “part of Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump?” After all, the lawyer from Russia now claims she is not a government lawyer. Moreover, does the statement suggest knowledge on the part of the Trump campaign about support from the government of Russia? I’m certain Congress and Robert Mueller will want to probe.

      But I don’t think this really amounts to much, at least as a legal matter. “Collusion” is not a cognizable federal offense. Politicians seek dirt on other candidates—the dirtier the better. That is what “opposition research” is all about.

      Campaigns are happy to get this edge from pretty much anywhere. Indeed, there are claims, discussed in a Politico article in January, that the Ukrainian government sought to aid Hillary Clinton’s campaign by supplying damaging information regarding Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort to a Democratic operative. Embassy officials “worked very closely” with the operative to expose Manafort’s work for Viktor Yanukovych, the Kremlin-backed former Ukrainian president. And the Democratic National Committee encouraged the operative to meet with the Ukrainian ambassador.

      I think that those who despise President Donald Trump continually find ways of nourishing their deep abhorrence. If it is not “collusion,” it is “treason” or “conflict of interest” or “obstruction.” The wheat, if there is any, gets lost amid all the chaff. Those who lionize the president are in the lamentable business of excusing conduct, no matter if it demonstrates extremely bad judgment, poor taste or worse. Both tendencies will continue for the foreseeable future.

      ‘Very strong evidence of a nascent conspiracy’

      Samuel Buell is a law professor at Duke University and a former federal prosecutor who led the Justice Department’s prosecution of Enron Corporation.

      Collusion, of course, is not a legal thing. The question of the underlying crime here might be tricky, and would include possible violation of campaign contribution laws. But if there is an underlying campaign violation in play legally, the email and meeting are very strong evidence of a nascent conspiracy and attempt to commit such an offense. Contemporaneous emails don’t lie when it comes to jury trials. What pro-Donald Trump spinners were calling a “nothingburger” yesterday has become a Whopper.

      ‘It will be important to distinguish between the political and the legal discussion’

      Carrie Cordero is an attorney in private practice, adjunct professor at Georgetown Law and former counsel to the assistant attorney general for national security.

      As this story and the related investigations unfold, it will be important to distinguish between the political and the legal discussion. Collusion is the political term that is being used to described the overall inquiries into whether the Trump campaign assisted, cooperated or collaborated with Russian government efforts to influence the outcome of the 2016 election. There is no real question that the Russian government conducted such an influence campaign—the intelligence community released information of its assessment in the fall of 2016, and the Trump administration’s director of national intelligence has also supported that assessment.

      The questions that remain, then, are, what was involved in that influence effort, and what if any role the Trump campaign had in supporting, assisting or collaborating in it. The emails released Tuesday by Donald Trump Jr. reveal that, at least in preparation for one meeting that took place in June 2016, he was informed that the Russian government was engaged in activities to “support” the Trump campaign. The ongoing investigations will explore this and the other revelations in those emails from the legal perspective of whether members of the Trump campaign conspired to affect the election through fraudulent means, violate the campaign finance restrictions against receiving financial or other items or services of “value” from foreign nationals, or otherwise aided and abetted activities conducted by the Russian intelligence services on behalf of the Russian government.

      • Bill Bear says:

        What Is Collusion? Is It Even a Crime? (part 3)

        http://politico.com/magazine/story/2017/07/12/what-is-collusion-215366

        ‘Evidence suggests an interest within the campaign in receiving assistance from Russian sources’

        Alex Whiting is a professor at Harvard Law School focusing on domestic and international criminal prosecution issues, and was formerly a federal prosecutor.

        Collusion will likely come in the form of the solicitation or encouragement of any improper assistance to the Trump campaign from a foreign source, in this case from Russia. If Trump campaign officials encouraged Russian nationals to dig up information about Hillary Clinton or her campaign and provide it to the Trump campaign, that could amount to a violation of campaign finance laws, which prohibit foreign sources from providing something of value to a U.S. election campaign. The solicitation or encouragement might not be in the form of a direct, explicit request, but might be communicated implicitly, as long as there is evidence of an intent to obtain such improper assistance. The proof may rely on circumstantial evidence of a series of meetings or communications amounting to encouragement.

        The evidence that has emerged so far—in particular the meeting that Donald Trump Jr., Jared Kushner and Paul Manafort had with the Russian lawyer in June 2016—suggests an interest within the campaign in receiving assistance from Russian sources. It remains to be seen whether this interest crossed over into intentional solicitation or encouragement of such assistance.

        ‘Donald Trump Jr. has helped the prosecution by establishing motive’

        Peter Zeidenberg is a partner at Arent Fox and served as an assistant special counsel in the prosecution of I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby.

        I do not think the meeting, in and of itself, establishes a crime. But, by admitting that he sought the meeting in hope of obtaining damaging information about Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump Jr. has helped the prosecution by establishing motive to explain whatever conduct the government uncovers: Trump Jr. was looking for dirt on Clinton, and was looking to Russians to provide it. It will be very difficult for him—and, given their presence at the meeting, Paul Manafort or Jared Kushner—to now claim that they were not interested in getting damaging information from Russians.

        The actual email itself is incredibly damaging to not just Trump Jr., but also to Manafort and Kushner, who clearly knew the purpose of the meeting and went ahead with it. This establishes motive and state of mind for all three. A successful prosecution would have to show evidence that there was a quid pro quo: a promise of sanctions relief in exchange for Russian help with dirt on Hillary Clinton. And it would seem that those pieces are just lying around waiting to be put into the puzzle to complete this picture.

        There is another problem with Trump Jr.’s story as well. His claim that they “only” spoke about the adoption issue does not help him at all. Russian adoptions were stopped by Vladimir Putin because of sanctions put in place by the U.S. government. So it would be almost impossible to discuss the adoption issue without discussing the sanctions issue. It seems very likely that much of what was motivating Russia to help Donald Trump win was because it wanted sanctions relief. So this story is damaging to the president for that reason as well. It is another important piece of a puzzle that special counsel Robert Mueller will be assembling.

        ‘There is no federal law that criminalizes collusion. That does not mean that there are no possible crimes’

        Mark S. Zaid and Bradley P. Moss are national security attorneys based in Washington, D.C.

        There is no federal law that criminalizes collusion, in and of itself, between a political campaign and a foreign government. It’s highly unethical and inappropriate, but we do not believe Congress has ever chosen to specifically identify that legal term of art in a criminal statute in this context.

        That does not mean that there are no possible crimes to be investigated. For example, campaign finance laws could have been violated, especially depending on whether any “coordination” or “collusion” involved exchanges of funds or “things of value” between the Russians and the Trump campaign. The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act could have been violated if members of the Trump campaign assisted in or coordinated the dissemination of the emails stolen from the Democratic National Committee or John Podesta, Hillary Clinton’s campaign chair.

        What has been leaked to the press so far are all fragments of possible lines of criminal inquiry. They neither complete the picture for possible prosecution, nor rule out the idea that prosecutions could come about.

        ‘Seeking to obtain the work product of a prior hack would be no more criminal than a newspaper publishing the Pentagon Papers’

        Alan Dershowitz is emeritus professor of law at Harvard University.

        Which criminal statutes, if any, would be violated by collusion between a campaign and a foreign government, if collusion were to be proved? Unless there is a clear violation of an existing criminal statute, there would be no crime. Obviously, if anyone conspired in advance with another to commit a crime, such as hacking the Democratic National Committee, that would be criminal. But merely seeking to obtain the work product of a prior hack would be no more criminal than a newspaper publishing the work products of thefts such as the Pentagon Papers and the material stolen by Edward Snowden and Chelsea Manning. That is why the entire issue of alleged collusion with, and interference by, the Russians should be investigated openly by an independent nonpartisan commission, rather than by a prosecutor behind the closed doors of a grand jury.

        ‘Trump Jr. may be counting on his father to excuse him from criminal liability’

        Kathleen Clark is a law professor at Washington University in St. Louis specializing in legal ethics.

        U.S. election law prohibits foreigners from providing assistance to U.S. political campaigns, and prohibits anyone from soliciting such foreign assistance. It is through the lens of that law that I have followed the developments of the past few days about the June 9, 2016, meeting between Donald Trump Jr. and Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya.

        If the emails leading up to the meeting that Trump Jr. released Tuesday morning are genuine, they are damning. In the first email, a business associate wrote Trump Jr. and indicated that a Russian government official “offered to provide the Trump campaign with some official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary [Clinton] … and would be very useful to your father.” This email was offering assistance that would violate U.S. law. But rather than rebuff the offer, Trump Jr. expressed enthusiasm for it, and even suggested when the information should be disclosed to the public: “Seems we have some time and if it is what you say I love it especially later in the summer.” Trump Jr. may be counting on his father—and the presidential pardon power—to excuse him from criminal liability for what he disclosed Tuesday morning.

        ‘Evidence might establish other crimes’

        Norman Eisen is a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. He was the chief White House ethics lawyer from 2009 to 2011 and ambassador to the Czech Republic from 2011 to 2014.

        Collusion simply means that Donald Trump, his campaign or their representatives were working with Russia or its agents to affect the campaign. There is no crime of collusion, but if it were proved, that evidence might establish other crimes, such as conspiracy to commit cybercrime (with respect to hacking) or campaign finance violations (with respect to soliciting a thing of value from a foreign government, namely damaging information). Evidence of possible collusion is starting to come in, include Roger Stone’s contacts with “Guccifer”; actions by a GOP activist, Peter Smith, who apparently sought help from Russia and named campaign officials in related documents; and, of course, the just revealed emails and conduct of Donald Trump Jr., Paul Manafort and Jared Kushner in meeting a Russian lawyer.

        == end ==

        • formwiz says:

          A bunch of Lefty lawyers fulminating for a rag like Politico means zip.

          Collusion simply means that Donald Trump, his campaign or their representatives were working with Russia or its agents to affect the campaign.

          OK, prove it.

        • Kye says:

          You went through all that cutting and pasting just to admit what I said is correct: collusion is not illegal. And it still isn’t. Right now we are colluding about collusion. The item people are colluding about may be illegal but the collusion is not. Thank you for your support.

      • formwiz says:

        If there was evidence of a nascent conspiracy, that might be something.

        But there isn’t.

        None Bungling Bob could find.

    • formwiz says:

      You can beat this horse all you want. It ain’t goin’ nowhere.

  18. formwiz says:

    A bunch of Lefty lawyers fulminating for a rag like Politico means zip.

    Collusion simply means that Donald Trump, his campaign or their representatives were working with Russia or its agents to affect the campaign.

    OK, prove it.

  19. formwiz says:

    Excerpt from Mule Ears

    The Special Counsel did not find that the Trump campaign, or anyone associated with it, conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in these efforts, DESPITE MULTIPLE OFFERS FROM RUSSIAN-AFFILIATED INDIVIDUALS TO ASSIST THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN.

    IOW No conspiracy, no collusion, Russian offers were declined.

    Wah Wah

  20. Kye says:

    formwiz, these idiots will now spend the next two years whining and crying about how they were screwed the last two years. And that will give Trump the White House again in 2020. They are so mentally off they can’t step back and see how everyone else sees them: nuts!

    They can’t win the next election until they put the last one behind them. Fortunately they are too immature to see that.

  21. Professor Hale says:

    Of course they didn’t find anything. That wasn’t the point. The point was to send a message. The message is, “If you beat our chosen candidate, we will go after you. We will go after your livelihood. We will go after your family and friends. We will go after everyone who does business with you. We will use the full weight of the government at all levels to keep going after you. We will audit your taxes. We will inspect your businesses for code violations. We will bankrupt you defending yourself from us and we won’t need to spend a dime of our own money to do it. We will keep going after you and if we can’t find anything, we will make something up. We will be immune from the consequences of the harm we do and you will suffer. In the future, smart men and women won’t dare to oppose us because it just won’t be worth it to risk losing everything.”

    • Bill Bear says:

      Questions for Professor Hale:

      If a President or his campaign aides are suspected of having committed criminal acts during an election campaign, should those potential crimes be investigated? YES or NO?

      • Professor Hale says:

        You already know I have no interest in anything you have to say. That would include disingenuous questions. If you were honest you would admit that you don’t care what I have to say either. There is absolutely nothing I can say on any issue that will convince you you have been wrong on this and a list of other Democratic party talking points. I could have a signed confession from Hillary and Peodesta that they created the whole Russia thing, with video tape sworn statements of authenticity and you would still dig your heels in. It’s like defending the Democratic party talking points is your full time job. Well, far be it from be to piss on someone else’s rice bowl. You gotta earn a living. But I don’t have to help you. Write your own content.

        • Bill Bear says:

          Yes, I already knew that “Professor Hale” lacked the intellectual courage to answer a simple question… but I do appreciate his taking the time to confirm that fact.

          • formwiz says:

            Whiny The Poo is the last one to talk about intellectual courage.

            When presented with evidence, she ignores it.

            Go back into the woods where you belong.

          • Professor Hale says:

            Whatever, dude. What part of “I have nothing to say to you” are you having trouble with?

      • formwiz says:

        Ever hear the word evidence?

        Suspicion in itself has no legal standing.

        • Bill Bear says:

          Hmmmm.

          Perhaps formwiz is unaware that in law enforcement, evidence is gathered during the investigation… and that the investigation is generally triggered when a suspicion of criminal activity has arisen.

          • formwiz says:

            I said legal standing. Stuff that has to go before a judge. Until 2 years ago, warrants were required.

            Perhaps Whiny The Poo thinks, just because she’s a a run-in with the law, she knows it.

            Usually, pursuit of an investigation requires hard evidence or it is shut down. All that 4th and 5th Amendment stuff. Of course, Lefties think it’s all racist.

            Took 2 years, but even Mule Ears had to do it.

  22. Kye says:

    The entire left are liars and traitors. They all spent over two and a half years lying to the people through their mouthpieces in the Fake News Media. You all wonder why no one believes a thing you say? All you’ve done is lie and accuse Trump and now you can’t even admit you were wrong.

    No further indictments will be filed, and no one in the Trump family will be indicted. The two-year investigation never charged anyone with conspiracy related to the Trump campaign and Russia.
    The disappointment was evident on many of the news programs that served as the Mueller probe’s biggest boosters. MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow appeared to angrily asked why Mueller “let Trump off the hook?”
    For a refresher on just how confidently these predictions were made, here are a few flashbacks.
    In December 2017, MSNBC’s Mika Brzezinski said the Trump Team was might be going to jail “for the rest of their lives.”
    In December 2018, CNN’s Wolf Blitzer asked Delaware Sen. Coons — as he often does — if he thought Trump might be facing jail time. Sen. Coons said yes, “the issues outlined against both Michael Cohen and Paul Manafort, I think, continue to sharpen the ways in which it is clear that the Mueller investigation has produced a whole series of actions not previously exposed to the public.”
    Democratic lawmakers were not immune from setting lofty expectations from the outcome of the investigation. In December 2018, Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) said Trump could be the first president “to face the prospect of jail time.”
    “My takeaway is there’s a very real prospect that on the day Donald Trump leaves office the Justice Department may indict him, that he may be the first president in quite some time to face the real prospect of jail time,” Rep. Schiff said. “We have been discussing the issue of pardons that the president may offer to people or dangle in front of people. The bigger pardon question may come down the road as the next president has to determine whether to pardon Donald Trump.”
    In March 2017, Rep. Joaquin Castro (D-Texas) said the evidence he had already seen enough evidence of collusion to predict prison sentences.
    “My impression is after all of this is said and done that some people end up in jail,” he told CNN’s Blitzer. “My impression is that people will probably be charged and probably go to jail.”
    In March 2018, ABC’s Joy Behar hopefully predicted of the Trump family: “I think they’re all going to end up together in prison and maybe that’s a good thing.”
    And that’s just skimming the surface.

    You are all liars and traitors and quite honestly in a just world you’d be shot for treason. You’re lucky Trump isn’t “literally” Hitler you assholes.

    • Bill Bear says:

      “You are all liars and traitors and quite honestly in a just world you’d be shot for treason.”

      Apparently Kye has not the faintest idea what the legal definition of “treason” actually is.

      His abysmal ignorance is not, of course, a surprise to anyone who has read more than two of his comments.

      He probably doesn’t know what the term “eliminationism” means, either — despite the fact that he has just shown himself to be a devoted eliminationist.

      • Kye says:

        I know precisely what the definition of “traitor” is. Trai-tor a person who betrays a friend, country, principle, etc. Synonyms: betrayer, backstabber, double crosser, renegade, Judas, quisling, fifth columnist, viper.

        So you and they fit the definition. Sorry you can’t accept that you are a traitor to your country, race, people and government but FU, you are.

        I also know what eliminationism is. It’s practiced every day by radical left wing bigots on college campuses, leftist Fake News Media when they become propagandists and Mohammedan countries when they murder Jews and Christians or make them second class citizens. The only real places eliminationism is practiced in America are places controlled by leftists who, like you, can’t stand hearing a differing opinion.

        Now how about you try not being a narrow closed minded radical leftist bigot and admit Trump is not guilty and move on. Or continue to whine like a ten year old girl. Whatever.

        • Bill Bear says:

          “I know precisely what the definition of “traitor” is.”

          Oh dear… Kye is still having a problem reading for comprehension.

          I stated that “Kye has not the faintest idea what the legal definition of “treason” actually is.”

          Apparently Kye even has a problem just reading and recognizing the word “treason”… as well as the phrase “legal definition”.

          “Sorry you can’t accept that you are a traitor to your … race

          Not that we needed it, but Kye did just provide further evidence that yes, he is a white nationalist and a racist.

          “The only real places eliminationism is practiced in America are places controlled by leftists”

          Actually, no. Kye himself has demonstrated that he is an eliminationist, by advocating for the execution of those who do not agree with his political views. Eliminationism is a common trait among the extreme right wing in America, including Donald Trump. David Neiwert published an excellent Twitter thread a few months ago reviewing the history of eliminationism in America, and recent widespread adoption of the philosophy by the American right.

          https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1057678153252929536.html

        • formwiz says:

          This is the one that counts.

          Article III

          Section 3.
          Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

          The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted.

          That said, the Left has been making war on this country for a century.

          • Bill Bear says:

            “the Left has been making war on this country for a century.”

            Um, no. Disagreeing with the right is not an act of warfare. Apparently formwiz does not know the definition of “war”.

      • formwiz says:

        He may not know how the Constitution defines treason, but I do and, on that score, he’s right.

        Many, if not all of you, would be shot or imprisoned for the rest of your lives.

        He probably doesn’t know what the term “eliminationism” means, either

        Since it’s yet another phony word like homophobia or sexism, created by the Left to try to stigmatize people who have sense enough to know the Lefties are only devoted to destroying the United States as a federal republic, it really doesn’t matter.

        • Bill Bear says:

          “He may not know how the Constitution defines treason, but I do”

          Excellent. Can formwiz enlighten us as to the Constitutional definition of treason?

          “Since it’s yet another phony word”

          That’s another lie, of course. We are used to formwiz lying when he lacks the knowledge to intelligently discuss a topic.

          • formwiz says:

            No, I know the English language pretty well and I know when the Left comes up with a new epithet to intimidate people.

            Stick it up your knothole.

  23. Bill Bear says:

    formwiz wrote:

    “I said legal standing. Stuff that has to go before a judge.”

    This, of course, is not what was under discussion. My original question referred to investigation, not court proceedings. Perhaps formwiz failed to comprehend the question.

    Here’s my question again. formwiz can answer it directly:

    If a President or his campaign aides are suspected of having committed criminal acts during an election campaign, should those potential crimes be investigated? YES or NO?

    • formwiz says:

      To get a DA or superior officer in the police to agree to investing time and effort in an investigation, one usually has to offer some basis in fact rather than wishful thinking.

      And I assume, since the President has been cleared, Whiny The Poo is asking about Zippy.

      • Bill Bear says:

        Evasion noted.

        If a President or his campaign aides are suspected of having committed criminal acts during an election campaign, should those potential crimes be investigated? YES or NO?

  24. Bill Bear says:

    Evasion noted.

    If a President or his campaign aides are suspected of having committed criminal acts during an election campaign, should those potential crimes be investigated? YES or NO?

    “since the President has been cleared”

    That’s a lie, of course. Even Trump’s hand-picked Attorney General has stated that the Mueller report does not exonerate Trump of all crimes.

  25. Bill Bear says:

    “Stick it up your knothole.”

    We are used to formwiz declaring victory and running away when he lacks both the knowledge and the intellectual capacity to intelligently discuss a topic.

Bad Behavior has blocked 9923 access attempts in the last 7 days.