‘Not Exonerated’ Is Not a Standard Any Free Country Should Accept

[MiddleGround]

You should step out of the darkness of ignorance and read the report.

Nah... I prefer to LIVE my life instead of spending every waking moment reading reports of the lives of those in DC.

 

[Midnightrider]

Nah... I prefer to LIVE my life instead of spending every waking moment reading reports of the lives of those in DC.

You must be a slow reader, the report isn’t that long. And it’s not about the lives of those in DC.


It’s sad you want to spend your life talking about the report and defend8ng trump as if you knew something, but refuse to actually do the homework.

 

[MiddleGround]

You must be a slow reader, the report isn’t that long. And it’s not about the lives of those in DC.


It’s sad you want to spend your life talking about the report and defend8ng trump as if you knew something, but refuse to actually do the homework.

I'm not going to further engage your lunacy for the next 25-pages. You know your assumption and suggestion was assanine. Just leave it at that.

 

[Chris0nllyn]

Volume II was pointless if there is nothing they can do about it (even though they state IN Volume II that they could recommend post-presidency indictment, but don't recommend that). If there's nothing they could have done about Volume I, then yes, it would be pointless.

So you think there was no need to identify the acts nor what came out of the investigation regarding obstruction? No need to discuss the legal framework behind obstruction? No need to point out what Trump's own personal counsel sent to Mueller as legal defenses?

The report did NOT say "they could recommend post-presidency", it simply states that "the OLC opinion also recognizes that a President does not have immunity after he leaves office." It's a statement of fact about the legal opinion by the OLC.

 

[This_person]

So you think there was no need to identify the acts nor what came out of the investigation regarding obstruction? No need to discuss the legal framework behind obstruction? No need to point out what Trump's own personal counsel sent to Mueller as legal defenses?

The report did NOT say "they could recommend post-presidency", it simply states that "the OLC opinion also recognizes that a President does not have immunity after he leaves office." It's a statement of fact about the legal opinion by the OLC.

yes, I think if you're not going to do anything about it, there's no point in having it in the report.

"Guy got angry when we investigated him for a crime he didn't commit, so he thought we should wrap it up and issue our report letting people know he did not do anything wrong". That's essentially what Volume II says.

 

[Chris0nllyn]

yes, I think if you're not going to do anything about it, there's no point in having it in the report.

I write technical memos for clients. At the end of the tech memo we offer our recommendations. Sometimes those recommendations are "do nothing". We still include all the background info because it shows we did our homework on the issue.

Just because there's nothing they can do about it does not mean it shouldn't be in there. Arguing against governmental transparency is just silly.

 

[This_person]

I write technical memos for clients. At the end of the tech memo we offer our recommendations. Sometimes those recommendations are "do nothing". We still include all the background info because it shows we did our homework on the issue.

Just because there's nothing they can do about it does not mean it shouldn't be in there. Arguing against governmental transparency is just silly.

What transparency?

Your memos research a topic, I presume, that the answer is not known beforehand. Or, you need documentation to justify later decisions if the answer is strongly suspected beforehand. It's about something that already exists, and the decision for what to do.

In the case of Volume II, had there been no investigation into Trump or his campaign, there would be no potential for obstructing the investigation into Trump or his campaign. There was no valid reason for entering the investigation, so the entirety of Volume II is the result of the investigation that should not have been, therefore the result should not have been.

Meanwhile, it is clearly known, before the investigation, that (even though they say they can) they could not do anything about the result. If they had video of Trump killing that person on fifth avenue, there was nothing the SC or the AG could do about it, according to the interpretations of what the Report says. So, …. what's the point in documenting it? What is the point in taxpayer funding to get it all down on paper, and then redact it, and then fight over it? One paragraph - "Hammertime…..can't touch this...." and it's all over and there's not a single thing harmed, according to the interpretations of the Report.

So, yes, it shouldn't be there at all.

 

[BOP]

I’m sorry to be a broken record on this, but this line from Robert Mueller infuriates me:


That’s not how it works in America. Investigators are supposed to look for evidence that a crime was committed, and, if they don’t find enough to contend that a crime was a committed, they are supposed to say “We didn’t find enough to contend that a crime was committed.” They are notsupposed to look for evidence that a crime was not committed and then say, “We couldn’t find evidence of innocence.”



https://www.nationalreview.com/corn...ot-a-standard-any-free-country-should-accept/

 

[Chris0nllyn]

What transparency?

More than what was there before the report.

Your memos research a topic, I presume, that the answer is not known beforehand. Or, you need documentation to justify later decisions if the answer is strongly suspected beforehand. It's about something that already exists, and the decision for what to do.

Right. Which is no different than this case.

In the case of Volume II, had there been no investigation into Trump or his campaign, there would be no potential for obstructing the investigation into Trump or his campaign. There was no valid reason for entering the investigation, so the entirety of Volume II is the result of the investigation that should not have been, therefore the result should not have been.

But you agreed the govt. should have investigated the interference, so there was an investigation, and Trump was involved. I know you didn't want it to happen, but it did.

Meanwhile, it is clearly known, before the investigation, that (even though they say they can) they could not do anything about the result. If they had video of Trump killing that person on fifth avenue, there was nothing the SC or the AG could do about it, according to the interpretations of what the Report says. So, …. what's the point in documenting it? What is the point in taxpayer funding to get it all down on paper, and then redact it, and then fight over it? One paragraph - "Hammertime…..can't touch this...." and it's all over and there's not a single thing harmed, according to the interpretations of the Report.

The point is to put the facts and evidence out there. Aka transparency. Should Congress choose to do something about it, they have facts.

So, yes, it shouldn't be there at all.

And we simply disagree. I wanted to see the scope of the investigation. The facts behind it and the instances of possible obstruction that point to a pattern of behavior by the President of the United States.

I suspect had it not been Trump at the heart of the investigation, it would have been important and Volume II would have been paramount to establishing a pattern of behavior not fitting of someone who holds the highest office in the country. I also understand that we're past the point of wanting someone in office who does the right thing and has morals.

 

[This_person]

Right. Which is no different than this case.

It IS different from this case, because the outcome of the portion that included Mr. Trump was known BEFORE the investigation started. In all honesty, the outcome of the dozen or so Russians was also known, and is hardly changed in scope and ability for at least fifty years. But, yay, now we have indicted a few Russian military guys!

But you agreed the govt. should have investigated the interference, so there was an investigation, and Trump was involved. I know you didn't want it to happen, but it did.

It has nothing to do with wanting it to happen. It's a reasonable investigation for a sophomore-level FBI agent to look into the Facebook posts. That really should have happened.

The point is to put the facts and evidence out there. Aka transparency. Should Congress choose to do something about it, they have facts.

What do you suggest they do with fruit from the poisonous tree?

And we simply disagree. I wanted to see the scope of the investigation. The facts behind it and the instances of possible obstruction that point to a pattern of behavior by the President of the United States.

I suspect had it not been Trump at the heart of the investigation, it would have been important and Volume II would have been paramount to establishing a pattern of behavior not fitting of someone who holds the highest office in the country. I also understand that we're past the point of wanting someone in office who does the right thing and has morals.

What exactly is that pattern?

 

[This_person]

Could not have put it that well, let alone better, myself.

 

[transporter]

yes, I think if you're not going to do anything about it, there's no point in having it in the report.

"Guy got angry when we investigated him for a crime he didn't commit, so he thought we should wrap it up and issue our report letting people know he did not do anything wrong". That's essentially what Volume II says.

Really?? That's what you got out of Volume II???

That has got to be the stupidest thing you have posted in some time.

Just wondering...how many timeshares do you own????

 

[transporter]

I’m sorry to be a broken record on this, but this line from Robert Mueller infuriates me:


That’s not how it works in America. Investigators are supposed to look for evidence that a crime was committed, and, if they don’t find enough to contend that a crime was a committed, they are supposed to say “We didn’t find enough to contend that a crime was committed.” They are notsupposed to look for evidence that a crime was not committed and then say, “We couldn’t find evidence of innocence.”



https://www.nationalreview.com/corn...ot-a-standard-any-free-country-should-accept/

Where is spitbubble and her distaste for things taken out of context????

 

[This_person]

Really?? That's what you got out of Volume II???

That has got to be the stupidest thing you have posted in some time.

Just wondering...how many timeshares do you own????

What did you get out of it. Be specific.

 

[Chris0nllyn]

It IS different from this case, because the outcome of the portion that included Mr. Trump was known BEFORE the investigation started. In all honesty, the outcome of the dozen or so Russians was also known, and is hardly changed in scope and ability for at least fifty years. But, yay, now we have indicted a few Russian military guys!

Would you agree that Trump could be charged post-presidency? Or perhaps impeached? And those two things could result from the report's facts? You're focusing on what happens right now because it's convenient but acknowledge in the past things could happen later when it suites your argument.

It has nothing to do with wanting it to happen. It's a reasonable investigation for a sophomore-level FBI agent to look into the Facebook posts. That really should have happened.

It was an investigation into a sophisticated attempt by a Russian agency to access computer systems, steal voter information, hack political parties, travreled to and in the US to gather intel, and a host of other things laid out in not only Volume I, but the indictments of the Russians.
https://www.justice.gov/file/1035477/download

What do you suggest they do with fruit from the poisonous tree?

That's not what it is. Fruit from a poisonous tree is illegal obtained evidence. Nothing about the report was done illegally and nothing presented as facts within the report have been challenged by Trump nor the folks surrounding it/subject of it.

What exactly is that pattern?

A pattern of doing whatever it takes to save face. A pattern of trying to end the investigation. A pattern of lies.

How? Well that's in Volume II.

1. Flynn. He lied to officials about his talks with Russian officials. The WaPo reported that, Trump called Priebus, and Flynn stated that he was pressured to kill the story. Flynn's deputy called the Post to deny it and Trump officials denied what was discussed as reported by the WaPo. Acting AG warned the WH that Flynn was lying and that they were passing along lies as well. Trump forced Flynn's resignation then pulled Comey to the said and asked if he'd let Flynn off. Trump publically denied doing that but the report found evidence to support Comey's claim.

2. Sessions. After Sessions recused himself, Trump was mad and asked him to unrecuse himself. Turns out, Sessions didn't disclose his own discussions with the same Russian Flynn talked to. Not long after, Comey testified that there was an investigation happeneing but refused to say about whom. Trump got angry and pushed McGahn to intervene with the DoJ. This is when he looked into if Trump needed cause to fire Comey.

3. Comey. Trump lublically said he fired Comey because of his handling of the Clinton investigation. HE went on to tell the Russian foreign minister that he did it at least in part because of how this investigation was going. Trump made sure Comey's termination letter included a sentence that Comey told Trump he wasn't under investigation.

the evidence does indicate that a thorough FBI investigation would uncover facts about the campaign and the President personally that the President could have understood to be crimes or that would give rise to personal and political concerns.

4. Trump tried to get McGahn to remove Mueller. McGahn didn't do so and warned that doing so would be another argument for obstruction claims. Trump freaked out, claimed it was the end of his Presidency and blamed Sessions. Once the WaPo reported Trump was being investigated, he asked McGahn to get rid of Mueller again. He declined and tried to resign.

The evidence indicates that news of the obstruction investigation prompted the president to call McGahn and seek to have the Special Counsel removed

5. When in doubt, try and change the scope. Trump had Lewandowski deliver a message to Sessions askign him to limit the investigation to just making sure Russia didn't do it again. Trump wanted Sessions to publically say that Trump was being treated unfairly. Lewandowski had scheduling conflicts and couldn't delivery the message. About this time, it came out that Trump Jr. and others met with Russian lobbyists, so Trump asked Lewandowski to do it again. He passed it off to Rick Dearborn where it "raised an eyebrow" and he refused to deliver it to Sessions.

6. Trump Tower meeting. After the story came out, Trump's campaign claimed it was about russian adoptions. It was also about the fact that his campaign was told the Russians had dirt on Clinton. Trump had a personal role in crafting the narrative surrounding this incident.

It goes on.

Off topic, it sure seemed the WaPo was right about a number of important stories. It's a shame folks here simply dismiss it because Trump told them to.

 

[Midnightrider]

I'm not going to further engage your lunacy for the next 25-pages. You know your assumption and suggestion was assanine. Just leave it at that.

Or you can stay in the bliss of ignorance. Your choice

 

[Gilligan]

Off topic, it sure seemed the WaPo was right about a number of important stories. It's a shame folks here simply dismiss it because Trump told them to.

Not me. I want impeachment proceedings to begin immediately.

 

[This_person]

Would you agree that Trump could be charged post-presidency? Or perhaps impeached? And those two things could result from the report's facts? You're focusing on what happens right now because it's convenient but acknowledge in the past things could happen later when it suites your argument.

It's not about suiting my argument - my argument is that if they wanted to indict post-presidency, they could have said so. The AG is on record agreeing with me (after I said it first ).

They didn't choose to do that. That tells me that they have nothing of value.

As for impeachment, that's Congress' job to handle, not the SC's office. They already have investigations going. If they want to do that, they can. There's zero requirement for the executive branch to give Congress a report they can do themselves.

It was an investigation into a sophisticated attempt by a Russian agency to access computer systems, steal voter information, hack political parties, travreled to and in the US to gather intel, and a host of other things laid out in not only Volume I, but the indictments of the Russians.

Ok, a few agents.

That said, we knew going in that not a single person in the Trump campaign nor Trump himself was involved. We knew going in that the actions were of zero significance in the outcome of the election (attempted interference without actual interference). So, it's a great investigation into the decades of experience we have with Russian attempts at interference in our elections - why did we need a special council's office? We knew going in that we did not need that, but did it anyway.

That's not what it is. Fruit from a poisonous tree is illegal obtained evidence. Nothing about the report was done illegally and nothing presented as facts within the report have been challenged by Trump nor the folks surrounding it/subject of it.

Perhaps you've missed the discussions on the FISA warrants that initiated the Trump campaign's involvement in the investigation at all?

A pattern of doing whatever it takes to save face. A pattern of trying to end the investigation. A pattern of lies.

How? Well that's in Volume II.

1. Flynn. He lied to officials about his talks with Russian officials. The WaPo reported that, Trump called Priebus, and Flynn stated that he was pressured to kill the story. Flynn's deputy called the Post to deny it and Trump officials denied what was discussed as reported by the WaPo. Acting AG warned the WH that Flynn was lying and that they were passing along lies as well. Trump forced Flynn's resignation then pulled Comey to the said and asked if he'd let Flynn off. Trump publically denied doing that but the report found evidence to support Comey's claim.

2. Sessions. After Sessions recused himself, Trump was mad and asked him to unrecuse himself. Turns out, Sessions didn't disclose his own discussions with the same Russian Flynn talked to. Not long after, Comey testified that there was an investigation happeneing but refused to say about whom. Trump got angry and pushed McGahn to intervene with the DoJ. This is when he looked into if Trump needed cause to fire Comey.

3. Comey. Trump lublically said he fired Comey because of his handling of the Clinton investigation. HE went on to tell the Russian foreign minister that he did it at least in part because of how this investigation was going. Trump made sure Comey's termination letter included a sentence that Comey told Trump he wasn't under investigation.


4. Trump tried to get McGahn to remove Mueller. McGahn didn't do so and warned that doing so would be another argument for obstruction claims. Trump freaked out, claimed it was the end of his Presidency and blamed Sessions. Once the WaPo reported Trump was being investigated, he asked McGahn to get rid of Mueller again. He declined and tried to resign.


5. When in doubt, try and change the scope. Trump had Lewandowski deliver a message to Sessions askign him to limit the investigation to just making sure Russia didn't do it again. Trump wanted Sessions to publically say that Trump was being treated unfairly. Lewandowski had scheduling conflicts and couldn't delivery the message. About this time, it came out that Trump Jr. and others met with Russian lobbyists, so Trump asked Lewandowski to do it again. He passed it off to Rick Dearborn where it "raised an eyebrow" and he refused to deliver it to Sessions.

6. Trump Tower meeting. After the story came out, Trump's campaign claimed it was about russian adoptions. It was also about the fact that his campaign was told the Russians had dirt on Clinton. Trump had a personal role in crafting the narrative surrounding this incident.

It goes on.

Off topic, it sure seemed the WaPo was right about a number of important stories. It's a shame folks here simply dismiss it because Trump told them to.

A politician with a history of lying about insignificant and sometimes significant things to make himself look better? I'm shocked! We would have zero politicians in any elected office if that were illegal.

Sadly, it's not. Not only is it not illegal, it's almost impossible to not be true of them, as they campaign on lies and misleading statements.

You're not going to get anywhere with that line of reasoning. I challenge you to show me an honest politician - including a Libertarian.

 

[This_person]

Or you can stay in the bliss of ignorance. Your choice

Ready to debate, or are you still ignorant and waiting for the author of your chart to post their reasoning so you can cut and paste it to me?

 

[somdwatch]

Do you notice the Hillary isn't spouting her face of on the subject! Keeping a low profile with pending investigations as to why this started!

As quoted by Sappy "I'm sure Trump will be charged with more crimes before Hillary.

Please pin this for future reference "