Russia probes II -- The Mueller Report

[ian hacktorp]

2 minutes ago, Tatetopa said:

Does "most" now mean 1/3 to 1/2?

I'd say around 7/8 of those not nibbling grass and sporting cloven hooves.

[Merc14]

1 hour ago, Einsteinium said:

Believe it or not RavenHawk, not everyone is a democrat or a republican. Not everyone can be defined by left or right wing ideology. The world is not black and white.

You are a leftist, a far left, Trump hating, leftist that can't muster the courage to admit you were completely wrong about Trump colluding with Russia to change the election.  That is the point here and you are definitely not alone, in fact I haven't seen many who admit their error, the character fault that forbids honest self analysis is endemic to the far left it seems.  Personally I am glad of this fault because it keeps you leftists locked into your delusion, to the point that you all look laughably ridiculous, while it simulataneously impedes your ability to change behavior, hence the democrat slide to the radical left.   Hopefully Pelosi loses control and the democrats impeacg Trump, it would ensure your lotal loss in 2020.

Edited April 19, 2019 by Merc14

[Tatetopa]

1 hour ago, Hammerclaw said:

Even were all that true--which it isn't--it's too late, now. When your side lowered the bar for Bill Clinton when it comes to honesty and integrity, it's stays down forever. You have reaped what you sowed.

Interesting, true, but a little slanted.  Didn't Starr report his findings with all of the ugly details while testifying before a Congress hostile to President Clinton?  If Clinton had been as smart as the current President's team, the Starr report would have gone to Clinton's attorney general to summarize.  Clinton could have then come on TV to say, "You see I told you, I didn't have "Sex" with that woman int the Oval office.  Case closed."

Don't get me wrong, I am not a fan of Slick Willie, but  this special investigation report was not handled in quite the same way.

[ian hacktorp]

1 minute ago, Einsteinium said:

Then enlighten me please.

I have personally been the subject of an investigation. In high school someone taped a small explosive device to a neighbors window and blew in their window. They investigated and someone said they thought I knew who did it. So, without any proof at all, they interviewed me and threatened to give me a lie detector test if I did not tell the truth. Nothing ever became of it because I was not involved, but that IS how investigations work. Allegations are made, if they are credible enough the investigators follow up on them and use various methods to try and determine if those allegations are true or not. This is really pretty standard stuff.

Your unfortunate case would only make a useful example if the window explosion never happened, but you were accused of it anyway.

Worse, if the cops were the ones who set you up to take a fall for a crime they themselves staged, their investigation would be highly illegal...and the cops would belong in prison.

You are now enlightened.

[Tatetopa]

1 hour ago, RavenHawk said:

 I believe that Barr is a smart man.  He knows what he is doing

I do agree with that.  He is a very smart guy.

[Merc14]

Just now, Tatetopa said:

Interesting, true, but a little slanted.  Didn't Starr report his findings with all of the ugly details while testifying before a Congress hostile to President Clinton?  If Clinton had been as smart as the current President's team, the Starr report would have gone to Clinton's attorney general to summarize.  Clinton could have then come on TV to say, "You see I told you, I didn't have "Sex" with that woman int the Oval office.  Case closed."

Don't get me wrong, I am not a fan of Slick Willie, but  this special investigation report was not handled in quite the same way.

He did hence the rules changes that led to this report.

[Tatetopa]

10 minutes ago, hacktorp said:

I'd say around 7/8 of those not nibbling grass and sporting cloven hooves.

Well I suppose if you get selective enough, you could get to 100%.  For example, 100% all white male Trump supporters over the age of 40 years old, which we in the group believe are the only true Americans.

[Einsteinium]

9 minutes ago, hacktorp said:

Your unfortunate case would only make a useful example if the window explosion never happened, but you were accused of it anyway.

Worse, if the cops were the ones who set you up to take a fall for a crime they themselves staged, their investigation would be highly illegal...and the cops would belong in prison.

You are now enlightened.

What was staged here?

 

The russians hacked the DNC, that was a crime and we know that to be true. We even know when they did it (the night after Trump asked them to find the missing emails) and we know from what computers they launched this attack from.

So the window explosion DID happen in this case.

[ian hacktorp]

1 minute ago, Tatetopa said:

Well I suppose if you get selective enough, you could get to 100%.  For example, 100% all white male Trump supporters over the age of 40 years old, which we in the group believe are the only true Americans.

You know, just when it seems you might be ready to accept a little bit of hard truth, you always manage to wave it off with a spurt of race-baiting innuendo.

You're gonna have to get past that.

[ian hacktorp]

1 minute ago, Einsteinium said:

The russians hacked the DNC, that was a crime and we know that to be true.

If you were paying close attention, you'd know this claim is among the most obvious false conclusions in the Mueller report.

The fact that Barr appears to accept this (false) conclusion only sets Mueller up for deep humiliation (and worse) when the truth is shown to be otherwise.

[Einsteinium]

Just now, hacktorp said:

If you were paying close attention, you'd know this claim is among the most obvious false conclusions in the Mueller report.

The fact that Barr appears to accept this (false) conclusion only sets Mueller up for deep humiliation (and worse) when the truth is shown to be otherwise.

And what makes you think that you are right on this? You are making a truly extraordinary claim here, what evidence do you have to back up your claim? 

[ian hacktorp]

2 minutes ago, Einsteinium said:

And what makes you think that you are right on this? You are making a truly extraordinary claim here, what evidence do you have to back up your claim? 

Pretty much everyone is aware of the explosive allegations made over who was really behind the theft of DNC files and how they got to Wikileaks, so there's no need for you to pretend it's somehow my claim.

As you say...we will see.  All I'm telling you is that this part of the Mueller report will be found to be false.

[RavenHawk]

9 minutes ago, Einsteinium said:

The russians hacked the DNC, that was a crime and we know that to be true. We even know when they did it (the night after Trump asked them to find the missing emails) and we know from what computers they launched this attack from.

So the window explosion DID happen in this case.

Gawd!!!  There’s still someone who thinks Trump was giving orders?  Please be consistent.  Trump was or was not an agent of Russia.  If he was an agent of Russia, they wouldn’t be taking orders from Trump.  You need to study up on the part of speech called sarcasm.  Entities had already hacked the DNC by the time Trump made that statement.  The worse case is that some hacker took him seriously, like any fool did.

[Gromdor]

44 minutes ago, hacktorp said:

Mueller was directed to investigate allegations against Carter Page and others...allegations that existed only in the Steele Dossier.

To be accurately informed, it's not quite enough for one to simply be "reading" the report.  One must also comprehend what it is they are reading.

Well, Carter Page was indeed mentioned in paragraph 4 on page 6 of the report as one of the instances of Russian contacts with the campaign and again on pages 95-102 but he isn't listed at all in the reasons why the investigation started.  Are you saying the dossier was made in 2008?  Because that is when his Russia connections appear to have first started. He was even involved in a 2015 charge against two russian unregistered agents in which he was known as "male #1".  Are you saying the FBI has a time machine?

[Einsteinium]

2 minutes ago, hacktorp said:

Pretty much everyone is aware of the explosive allegations made over who was really behind the theft of DNC files and how they got to Wikileaks, so there's no need for you to pretend it's somehow my claim.

As you say...we will see.  All I'm telling you is that this part of the Mueller report will be found to be false.

But that is just an unfounded and baseless accusation that the FBI has clearly and conclusively shown to be false. So your theory is baseless and has been disproven already.

It may take years, but someday you will realize this is true.

[ian hacktorp]

4 minutes ago, Gromdor said:

Well, Carter Page was indeed mentioned in paragraph 4 on page 6 of the report as one of the instances of Russian contacts with the campaign and again on pages 95-102 but he isn't listed at all in the reasons why the investigation started.  Are you saying the dossier was made in 2008?  Because that is when his Russia connections appear to have first started. He was even involved in a 2015 charge against two russian unregistered agents in which he was known as "male #1".  Are you saying the FBI has a time machine?

I thought you said you read page 11.  It very clearly mentions Carter Page and claims he worked with Russia to interfere with the 2016 election, so apparently you didn't read it at all.  Or failed to comprehend what you read.

From page 11:

Quote

It then confirmed that the Special Counsel had been authorized since his appointment to investigate allegations that three Trump campaign officials — Carter Page, Paul Manafort, and George Papadopoulos"committed a crime or crimes by colluding with Russian government officials with respect to the Russian government’s efforts to interfere with the 2016 presidential election.”

 

[+OverSword]

I was just on youtube watching several reports in which the media seems to be desperately trying to convince themselves that trump talking about, but not  actually firing Mueller and stating that news stories are fake can be called obstructing justice. 

Here is how I envision the Mueller testimony.  A senator will ask a question, Muellers lawyer will cover the microphone with his hand, lean over and whisper in Muellers ear.  Mueller will then plead the 5th amendment or state he does not recall the specific thing the question is referencing.  And the TDS will continue in our nation unabated because the current government would rather spend every ounce of energy undermining trump instead of just legislating like they are supposed to be doing.

[ian hacktorp]

6 minutes ago, Einsteinium said:

But that is just an unfounded and baseless accusation that the FBI has clearly and conclusively shown to be false.

Not too many people still believe what the FBI claims happened during this time.

Congratulations!  You're one of the few, the proud, the completely bamboozled.

[Einsteinium]

9 minutes ago, RavenHawk said:

Gawd!!!  There’s still someone who thinks Trump was giving orders?  Please be consistent.  Trump was or was not an agent of Russia.  If he was an agent of Russia, they wouldn’t be taking orders from Trump.  You need to study up on the part of speech called sarcasm.  Entities had already hacked the DNC by the time Trump made that statement.  The worse case is that some hacker took him seriously, like any fool did.

I never said Trump was giving orders wtf? It is a true statement that the Russians hacked into DNC the night after Trump made that statement, I merely made a factual statement as to the timeline.

I did not find Trump asking Russia to 'find the missing emails' of his political opponent to be sarcastic in any way, he looked directly into the camera and very seriously made that ask, it was truly an unprecedented thing in American politics to see a presidential candidate ask for something like that from Russia and it was irresponsible and highly unethical, but hey, this is Trump we are talking about.

It doesn't matter anyways because Mueller clearly did not find any evidence that Trump was giving any sort of an order to Russia. I accept his conclusions on that. Trump is just a moron, clearly.

[Einsteinium]

2 minutes ago, hacktorp said:

Not too many people still believe what the FBI claims happened during this time.

Congratulations!  You're one of the few, the proud, the completely bamboozled.

You know, occams razor. What is more likely? That the FBI was engaged in an international criminal conspiracy to prevent Trump from becoming president, and if he did, to topple his presidency- or that Assange is lying?

Pretty obvious that Assange is lying (or was himself lied to and believed the lie). Come on man, think! If this conspiracy did exist then Muellers report would have found clear obstruction and conspiracy (because if this was a criminal conspiracy that relied on made up evidence they would have made up more evidence to complete their goal, don't you think?) and he would have done far, far more damage to Trump than he did. Instead what we have is a very professionally done investigation and report that lays out the facts as we know them and nothing more.

Yeah, some conspiracy.

[Tiggs]

2 minutes ago, Einsteinium said:

I never said Trump was giving orders wtf? It is a true statement that the Russians hacked into DNC the night after Trump made that statement, I merely made a factual statement as to the timeline.

Clinton's email server, rather than the DNC.

 

[Einsteinium]

Just now, Tiggs said:

Clinton's email server, rather than the DNC.

 

Yes you are correct, thanks for correcting me.

[Tatetopa]

2 minutes ago, hacktorp said:

You know, just when it seems you might be ready to accept a little bit of hard truth, you always manage to wave it off with a spurt of race-baiting innuendo.

You're gonna have to get past that.

Hacktorp, I am willing to accept a little bit of hard truth.  I would just like you as well as the Democrats to stop with hyperbole and  fake news.  Many people, or even half  are fair characterizations probably not most.  Especially when you need to follow it up with a grass chewing implication that everybody that does not agree with your assessment is a sheep.

The truth is, the report is handed in and done.  The truth is, the Democrats are not likely to gain any advantage by digging themselves deeper into a hole.  The truth is that some of them probably will anyway.

The truth is I am glad, as are many who are not Trump fans,  that there was not sufficient evidence to convict a sitting president of collusion or obstruction of justice, that would have been a serious blow to the United States. 

And now, maybe the truth is that we better move on to more important issues.

27 minutes ago, Merc14 said:

Pelosi loses control and the democrats impeacg Trump, it would ensure your lotal loss in 2020.

Probably an accurate prediction. 

So, there is a rich field of issues in America that have zip to do with the Mueller report.  The Republicans and the Democrats are free to find their strategic positions on this empty battlefield.

Infrastructure; including aging bridges power grid, and highways, airports and ports and trade practices that need to be modernized.  Education and its relation to America's technology superiority in past generations.  Health care is a concern for some.  A middle class still shrinking due to cheap overseas labor and automation, and that now includes white collar jobs. Future job prospects for people of high school and college age (many of whom will be voting in 2020.)   For some people, air and water pollution are issues.  For others, climate change is an issue (again, many of those young people who will be able to vote in 2020.) 

The truth is that we need secure borders and an overhauled immigration policy.  That alone cannot be a signature issue for Republicans in 2020 and 2024.  

If for some reason, the wall and enhanced border security is not successful in halting the flow of drugs and non documented border crossings, then it is a failure and a live issue. 

Yet, I hope it is successful.  I will use your "most" again.  Most people want strong borders and controlled immigration.

Consider the other side of things.  The wall is successful and the border is secure.  How many elections before that becomes ancient history and the voters are asking both parties, "What have you done for me lately?"   The Republicans as well as the Democrats better be looking to the future.

[Gromdor]

10 minutes ago, hacktorp said:

I thought you said you read page 11.  It very clearly mentions Carter Page and claims he worked with Russia to interfere with the 2016 election, so apparently you didn't read it at all.  Or failed to comprehend what you read.

From page 11:

 

Oh, true that.  His name is indeed mentioned once on page 11.  I was reading it with a link to the dossier in mind.  That's why I was talking about the sections that talked about him in depth.

[ian hacktorp]

8 minutes ago, Einsteinium said:

You know, occams razor.

Occams Razor might suggest you stop listening to the media who has lied to you over and over and over again.

Occams Razor might suggest taking the MSM's track record into account when choosing who to believe.

But you do you.  Just keep in mind that Occams Razor is double-edged.