Mueller investigation

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Yet in spite of your desires, it didn't lead to an indictment of Trump. That was the goal.

That may have been the hope of some

Actually, the goal was that this investigation would lead ultimately to impeachment and removal from office. Now people are parading the consolation prize of "at least Roger Stone was indicted" as if that was the goal the whole time.

Eventually the full report will be released. If the Barr summary is an honest and accurate summary, what then for those desperately hoping to finally find a way to say "see, Trump does belong to Russia"?

 

[laughing dog]

Yet in spite of your desires, it didn't lead to an indictment of Trump. That was the goal.

That may have been the hope of some

Actually, the goal was that this investigation would lead ultimately to impeachment and removal from office.

The stated goal of the investigation is stated in Mueller's appointment letter (https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/05/17/us/politics/document-Robert-Mueller-Special-Counsel-Russia.html). Nowhere in that appointment letter is anything about impeachment or removal of office. There were people who hope this would lead to impeachment and removal of office. But that was not the goal of the investigation.

 

[barbos]

View attachment 20786

Yup, the Russian contacts are just a figment of the imagination.

Have you tried to draw a similar plot for Hillary?

Collusion in progress!!!!!

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

No one with the Hillary campaign was coordinating to release emails from the RNC server. No multiple persons either were involved in such behavior, nor have indictments for said action. No such middle-man proxy for Russia (i.e. WikiLeaks) was involved in such non-existent scandal. So the analogy doesn't work.

 

[barbos]

No one with the Hillary campaign was coordinating to release emails from the RNC server. No multiple persons either were involved in such behavior, nor have indictments for said action. No such middle-man proxy for Russia (i.e. WikiLeaks) was involved in such non-existent scandal. So the analogy doesn't work.

Correct me if I am wrong but Pee-Pee dossier was paid and ordered by DNC/hillary.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump–Russia_dossier#Research_funded_by_Democrats_produces_dossier

 

[Keith&Co.]

Correct me if I am wrong but Pee-Pee dossier was paid and ordered by DNC/hillary.

Not ordered.
Steele was originally contracted by opposition researchers working for the conservative political website The Washington Free Beacon.

When Trump became the front-runner, the conservatives stopped paying for opposition research. Then Hillary's opposition researchers sub-contracted Steele, for work he'd already accomplished on behalf of Republicans.

This was because the website and Hillary both hired the same company to do their research. So they just repurposed it.

But, yeah, the analogy fails.

 

[barbos]

Correct me if I am wrong but Pee-Pee dossier was paid and ordered by DNC/hillary.

Not ordered.
Steele was originally contracted by opposition researchers working for the conservative political website The Washington Free Beacon.

When Trump became the front-runner, the conservatives stopped paying for opposition research. Then Hillary's opposition researchers sub-contracted Steele, for work he'd already accomplished on behalf of Republicans.

This was because the website and Hillary both hired the same company to do their research. So they just repurposed it.

But, yeah, the analogy fails.

It does not fail. Hillary paid for dirt, Trump campaign did not even pay for not even dirt but emails which were "missing".

 

[Keith&Co.]

But, yeah, the analogy fails.

It does not fail. Hillary paid for dirt, Trump campaign did not even pay for not even dirt but emails which were "missing".

HAHAHAHAHA!

Yeah, hiring an American research firm to find 'dirt' on the opposition is just like knowing you're benefiting from someone breaking the law. Just the same as going on national television and inviting Russia to break the law. Sure.

If nothing else, I am willing to bet that every dollar spent by Hillary's campaign for this research was accounted for on the campaign's finances.
Trump lied repeatedly about even having any Russian contacts.

So, like, apples and wheelchairs, barbos.

 

[Elixir]

Have you tried to draw a similar plot for Hillary?

Obviously Hillary is a lot smarter than Trump. All her secret meetings with Russian intel agents remain secret. But feel free to make some shit up, invent some characters and create a visual like the one that has your panties all in a bunch. As with any Russian propaganda, it need not bear any correlation with the truth.
I look forward to seeing your "work".

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Actually, the goal was that this investigation would lead ultimately to impeachment and removal from office.

The stated goal of the investigation is stated in Mueller's appointment letter

Ah, so that's why Democrats were pushing for the investigation.

Do you have any other destinations for your goalposts?

 

[braces_for_impact]

I'm sorry (not really) but the picture of Hillary with Putin smacks of complete and utter desperation and complete intellectual bankruptcy. Why even try such a bad move?

 

[Gun Nut]

Actually, the goal was that this investigation would lead ultimately to impeachment and removal from office.

The stated goal of the investigation is stated in Mueller's appointment letter

Ah, so that's why Democrats were pushing for the investigation.

Do you have any other destinations for your goalposts?

Creating a strawman and then declaring that the other side of the argument has shifted the goalposts is a pretty obvious bit of fraud there on your part. The stated purpose is the stated purpose... that some people believed that the result would be removal of office has no impact whatsoever of the actual goal. You saying that there was some other goal, and then declare the goals shifted is just poor argumentation.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Ah, so that's why Democrats were pushing for the investigation.

Do you have any other destinations for your goalposts?

As a minor note, Rod Rosenstein (R) was appointed by Trump. Rod Rosenstein hired Mueller (R) to investigate the potential Russian problem in large consideration to Trump firing James Comey (R) admittedly over the Russia investigation.

You might notice that none of the people involved in the statements above were Democrats. This isn't to say, the Mueller Report is biased... it more to remind people with short attention spans that things were so fucked, people Trump appointed into the Justice Department ordered an investigation into Trump's Campaign and the potential Russian connection. It is one of the reasons why the Mueller Report isn't necessarily to be released to Congress... because Trump's Executive Branch ordered the investigation.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

This says it best:

 

[laughing dog]

Actually, the goal was that this investigation would lead ultimately to impeachment and removal from office.

The stated goal of the investigation is stated in Mueller's appointment letter

Ah, so that's why Democrats were pushing for the investigation.

Do you have any other destinations for your goalposts?

It doesn't matter what the Democrats pushed for. A Republican appointee in the DOJ of a Republican administration ordered the investigation. The appointment letter gave the goals of the investigation which did not include impeachment or removal from office. If you feel that is incorrect, I did post a link to the appointment letter.

Yes, there were many people (probably millions) including many Democrats who felt the goal of the investigation was impeachment and removal of office. While impeachment and removal of office may have been their goals for the investigation, those were not the goals of the investigation.

Please point to the part of that letter that you feel says that impeachment or removal from office are the goals (or even some of the goals) of the investigation. Without that evidence, your claim has no reality-driven merit.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Yes, there were many people (probably millions) including many Democrats who felt the goal of the investigation was impeachment and removal of office.

I still do, in fact, and, as I believe I have abundantly shown, the wording of Barr's letter and what he quoted from Mueller's report only serves to bolster that feeling. But it is, of course, all my own personal hope based on the fact that it is beyond clear to me that Trump is guilty. But what is clear to me and what a Special Prosecutor may (or may not) be able to legally establish beyond a reasonable doubt are obviously two completely different matters.

More importantly, however, is that we still don't know shit about the Mueller report. All we have is a four page summation--of a four hundred page report--from someone we already knew to be openly biased and who, regardless, did NOT disprove anything. All Barr did was raise more questions and reveal numerous legal pitfalls/nuances/vagaries embedded in the best of what he could cherry-pick.

But, any chance to pretend one of the worst criminal administrations the US has ever seen is not in the WH seems to be like chocolate to a fat kid for some.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

But, any chance to pretend one of the worst criminal administrations the US has ever seen is not in the WH seems to be like chocolate to a fat kid for some.

The Harding administration was over a century ago.

 

[Gun Nut]

But, any chance to pretend one of the worst criminal administrations the US has ever seen is not in the WH seems to be like chocolate to a fat kid for some.

The Harding administration was over a century ago.

What is with your incessant "Something similar was bad once, so stop talking about this" form of argument? I'm sure someone can "Name . That . Fallacy!".

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

I'm just impressed with how little historical perspective people have when discussing politics.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

But, any chance to pretend one of the worst criminal administrations the US has ever seen is not in the WH seems to be like chocolate to a fat kid for some.

The Harding administration was over a century ago.

You're right. That was, likewise, one of the worst criminal administrations the us has ever seen. I'm glad you can see the comparison.

Back on point, here is another indication from the Barr letter:

The Special Counsel found that Russian government actors successfully hacked into computers and obtained emails from persons affiliated with the Clinton campaign and Democratic Party organizations, and publicly disseminated those materials through various intermediaries, including WikiLeaks. Based on these activities, the Special Counsel brought criminal charges against a number of Russian military officers for conspiring to hack into computers in the United States for purposes of influencing the election. But as noted above, 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.

Got that? Barr is noting that Mueller brought charges against Russian military officers for conspiring to hack into computers in the US and publicly disseminating those materials through "various intermediaries, including Wikileaks."

He then reiterates a non-sequitur; that Mueller did not find anyone from the Trump campaign that conspired or coordinated with the Russian government "in these efforts." Well, the hacking and the public dissemination of the materials to "various intermediaries, including Wikileaks" constituted "these efforts" (and none of that was done directly by anyone in the Russian government regardless).

No one is accusing Trump or members of his campaign of having conspired with Russian hackers to hack US computers and then help them disseminate the materials to Wikileaks. They did all of that on their own. So what the fuck is Barr referring to in this paragraph?