"THE REPORT IS DONE"

[John Galt]

they are either geniuses that were able to get away with stuff that had investigation being run by the former head of the FBI with millions of dollars at his disposal or idiots, they can't be both

it wasn't collusion, and if he was trying to obstruct it was because he was worried it (it being, Russian Interference, which happened... without collusion) would cast a doubt on the legitimacy of his election

i have no doubt trump has committed a vast array of economic crimes to cover up mainly for his incompetence at actually doing anything outside of managing to funnel his father's wealth into his own pockets, but that wasn't being investigated

[Kane]

Nah,

They conspired with the Russians. They just did so in an incredibly incompetent fashion through several different people such that the intent wasn't clear enough to be prosecuted. It's like I said - they can claim the trump tower meeting was over adoptions or some other bullshit and Mueller doesn't have anything that can conclusively indicate otherwise. They're just lucky idiots. This is why Manafort got charged with all of the other crimes, why Roger Stone has been charged, etc. Plus - we're saying all of this now without reading the report itself. If it is released at some point perhaps we'll feel otherwise once circumstantial evidence comes to light.

I don't think it will be released though. I think the report would cast a large pall over this administration because it would demonstrate the level of incompetence still functioning today. Just look at Europe - Italy just gave China the go ahead for it's belt and road initiative, the UK is dealing with Brexit, all of the EU is being attacked by Russia via information wars, etc. And what did Trump do? He criticized them further, stoked Brexit, appealed to other states to pursue their own national interests, just giving the Chinese and the Russians another helping hand in the dismantling of the EU and Europe itself. On top of all of that the EU is now open to trading with Huawei for telecom purposes against US wishes. Honestly not surprising.

I don't think history will look kindly at Trump's foreign policy.

[Spider]

@galt
It doesn't take geniuses. People get away with this sort of shit 90% of the time because we don't tend to lock white collar types up much at all...and when we do it has to be completely over the top indisputable and public. trump has been getting away with it for decades. After this long, obviously, he knows how. His handlers knew how. lol at those of them not either behind bars right now or working to stay that way. The entire campaign reeked of the dirt and its simply nonsensical to pretend that after all this...it's all just nothing.

Bottom line is he admitted to meetings to score information on Clinton from Russian agents. He admitted it very publicly. It happened. He claims he didn't know about it...and how do you prove he did? As far as I'm concerned there was simply no doubt from the time of that tweet onwards. The rest of this is just the usual legalism about "Well, technically is this X or Y and is this other thing A or B under those conditions..." and bla bla bla, end result nothing sticks.

I'd like to read the complete report. So far my impression is that we have a whole bunch of trails with missing links to the conclusions. Must have been frustrating for Mueller, following all these obvious crumbs only to find cleanly scrubbed floor just when it was getting somewhere.

Mueller did his job. I don't doubt the legitimacy of his methods or the report. I just think this sort of thing is a LOT harder to prove than your factoring for.

[NotreDame05]

[quote="Spider"][quote="NAB"][quote="Josh"]Boomer Dems gave Trump too much credit. Boomer Repubs didn't give him enough. Boomers gonna boom.

The only swamp Trump drained was the immediate swamp in his political circle - if you had political assets/liabilities then Mueller got to look deep into your panties and saw you were tucking and taping.

The legit concerns were Russian social engineering through viral media and cyber security that put an intellectually feeble man in office.

It takes brain cells to collude and conspire successfully.[/quote]

Cosign. I’m just surprised Trump didn’t accidentally collude at the very least. It appears Don jr. got close to doing to it.[/quote]

They [i]did[/i] collude. They didn't get caught. The real tragedy here is that the entirely predictable outcome of this thing is being taken as an exoneration when in fact its more reflective of the limits of a properly liberal justice system. trump skated by on this thing because this is still America, in simultaneously the best and worst senses.[/quote]

[quote]They [i]did[/i] collude. They didn't get caught. [/quote]

What are you basing this on? What evidence is there that “they did collude” but the collusion escaped detection by the Mueller investigation? An investigation which involved 2,800 subpoenas, executed nearly 500 search warrants, more than 230 orders for communication records, nearly 50 orders authorizing pen registers, and interviewed nearly 500 witnesses, in addition to 19 lawyers, 40 FBI agents, forensic accountants, intelligence analysts. That’s a heck of an investigation, far exceeding anything I’ve been involved in my over 13 years as an Assistant District Attorney.

[exploited]

So, uh, do Americans not understand how the exact same term can be used and, depending on if it is colloquial or legal, mean something totally different?

It is obvious that the Trump campaign colluded with the Russians and obstructed the investigation. As Mueller made clear, not at all obvious that they did so criminally.

I mean you're just talking past one another.

[NotreDame05]

[quote="exploited"]So, uh, do Americans not understand how the exact same term can be used and, depending on if it is colloquial or legal, mean something totally different?

It is obvious that the Trump campaign colluded with the Russians and obstructed the investigation. As Mueller made clear, not at all obvious that they did so criminally.

I mean you're just talking past one another.[/quote]

Are we though? What conduct convinces you the Trump campaign “colluded” with the Russians?

The Mueller report is not silent in regards to an important aspect of collusion, particularly the agreement aspect, the plot aspect. The Barr summary is unequivocal. “The Special Counsel’s investigation did not find the Trump campaign or anyone associated with it, conspired or coordinated with Russia,” to influence the 2016 election. Neither did “they” (Trump campaign and anyone associated with it) “conspire or coordinate” with Russia in Russia’s “election interference activities.”


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[NotreDame05]

[quote="Luke Skywalker"][quote="NotreDame05"][quote="Spider"][quote="NAB"][quote="Josh"]Boomer Dems gave Trump too much credit. Boomer Repubs didn't give him enough. Boomers gonna boom.

The only swamp Trump drained was the immediate swamp in his political circle - if you had political assets/liabilities then Mueller got to look deep into your panties and saw you were tucking and taping.

The legit concerns were Russian social engineering through viral media and cyber security that put an intellectually feeble man in office.

It takes brain cells to collude and conspire successfully.[/quote]

Cosign. I’m just surprised Trump didn’t accidentally collude at the very least. It appears Don jr. got close to doing to it.[/quote]

They [i]did[/i] collude. They didn't get caught. The real tragedy here is that the entirely predictable outcome of this thing is being taken as an exoneration when in fact its more reflective of the limits of a properly liberal justice system. trump skated by on this thing because this is still America, in simultaneously the best and worst senses.[/quote]

[quote]They [i]did[/i] collude. They didn't get caught. [/quote]

What are you basing this on? What evidence is there that “they did collude” but the collusion escaped detection by the Mueller investigation? An investigation which involved 2,800 subpoenas, executed nearly 500 search warrants, more than 230 orders for communication records, nearly 50 orders authorizing pen registers, and interviewed nearly 500 witnesses, in addition to 19 lawyers, 40 FBI agents, forensic accountants, intelligence analysts. That’s a heck of an investigation, far exceeding anything I’ve been involved in my over 13 years as an Assistant District Attorney.[/quote]

Personally, I could give a rat's ass about the thousands of subpoenas, 500 search warrants, more than 230 orders and such and all the witnesses and FBI people, etc.

I could even care less about the investigation itself.

You know what it is?

You: I have no clue.

Me: Ignoring that last statement, which demands no further commentary, it is called BLINK (great book - read it). Blink, by Malcolm Gladwell. I have BLINK about Donald Trump. It's the feeling in my gut that something is extremely wrong here and with our sitting president. Can I prove it? No. Am I correct? Absolutely.

You: What the Hell does that mean?

Me: Read the book - and then don't forget to vote. ;)[/quote]

I couldn’t care less about your bloviating, caustic, vitriolic statement of what you give a “rat’s ass” about.

And it’s great to know you do care about the investigation, as you conceded as much with the remark of “I could even care less about the investigation itself.”

[quote] It's the feeling in my gut that something is extremely wrong here and with our sitting president. Can I prove it? No. Am I correct? Absolutely.[/quote]

That’s a fantastic philosophy. That permits anyone to believe in the most insanely, idiotic thing known to man, without an ability to “prove it” but validated on a “gut” feeling they are right, that “gut” feeling of being right mistakenly confused for a stomach ulcer, testicular cancer, diverticulitis, and much less with being “right.”


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[NotreDame05]

[quote="Luke Skywalker"]The U (That's U of Miami, Coral Gables - my alma mater) always kicked Notre Dame's ass in football when I attended there. If you're really from Notre Dame, then I suggest you start making sense (or else I will not reply to you).

And I'm smarter.[/quote]

I couldn’t care less about your alma mater. I’m equally unimpressed that you attended and/or graduated from the “U.” And you clearly left the “U” before ND beat Miami in 88 and again in 90, so you’re approximately 55 years of age. At 55 years of age, butterflies in your stomach still guide you to as to whether you’re right in your belief? That’s mystifying.

I’ll pass on your brand of “making sense,” since a tickle in my balls about something isn’t a rational, lucid, logical, or common sense way to determine whether my beliefs about anything are “right.”


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[NotreDame05]

[quote="Luke Skywalker"]OK, now that I'm back from taking my standard nightly doses of geritol tablets mixed with prune juice, I must say that you are one Hell of a (what did you call it) assistant district attorney.

But how is it that you can defend a guy like Donald Trump?

You've basically called me an idiot for hating him (which I do not, in fact). Let's say that's true, hypothetically speaking.

Let's say that I'm this crazy idiot.

You made that statement (which is anything but true) - now, I'm waiting for you to prove it. Shouldn't be hard for you - you're a lawyer.

What do you say, Mr. District Attorney?[/quote]

I’m not defending Donald Trump. I personally despise the man. He is the antithesis of my political beliefs.

I generally just call em as I see em, or try to, and do so as best I can without my political beliefs tainting my optics. I am very much, to my detriment according to some, guided by evidence, sound, logical reasoning, and have disdain for “gut feeling” evidence, which isn’t evidence, and neither is it a sound, logical reason to believe something is true.

That said, I didn’t “basically call you and idiot for hating him.” I do not have enough information to decide whether you are smart or not, and really I do not care to make such a judgment as it is irrelevant to what I am discussing and desire to discuss. What I did comment upon was the fact that your logic of feel my way to the truth, this “gut feeling” as a compass pointing to what is right, what is true, isn’t a sound and lucid approach.

In this thread, based on the facts, evidence, and information at my disposal, I adhere to those remarks I made to two other posters. Those remarks are consistent with and supported by the presently disclosed evidence and information.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Saz]