Russian Influence Measured

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Piercing counter argument there, Trausti. Are you finally drinking from the big boy sippy cup, or still haven't mastered that yet?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

This is exactly how conspiracy theories work. All facts are evidence and all missing facts is evidence of a cover up.

He fired the director of the FBI and told an interviewer that he fired the guy over the Russia investigation. This isn't a conspiracy theory. This is "obstruction of justice" in the spirit of the law. The concern Mueller might have is that Mueller wouldn't want to put forth a charge unless he knows he can convict on it. No one has ever convicted a President on obstruction of justice, and with the right SCOTUS (think "unitary executive" crowd), it can be acceptable to some that the President can not be found to be in obstruction of justice because he is the head of the Executive Branch of government.

The point is, Mueller doesn't say Trump didn't obstruct justice. He doesn't decide on whether to charge Trump on it. There is a massive difference, because in Mueller's Report, if he didn't think Trump obstructed justice, he would have said exactly that.

Trump has obstructed justice (admitted in nationally televised interview) and tampered with witnesses (via Twitter). The question is, is the President immune to such charges?

 

[barbos]

This is exactly how conspiracy theories work. All facts are evidence and all missing facts is evidence of a cover up.

He fired the director of the FBI and told an interviewer that he fired the guy over the Russia investigation. This isn't a conspiracy theory. This is "obstruction of justice" in the spirit of the law. The concern Mueller might have is that Mueller wouldn't want to put forth a charge unless he knows he can convict on it. No one has ever convicted a President on obstruction of justice, and with the right SCOTUS (think "unitary executive" crowd), it can be acceptable to some that the President can not be found to be in obstruction of justice because he is the head of the Executive Branch of government.

The point is, Mueller doesn't say Trump didn't obstruct justice. He doesn't decide on whether to charge Trump on it. There is a massive difference, because in Mueller's Report, if he didn't think Trump obstructed justice, he would have said exactly that.

Trump has obstructed justice (admitted in nationally televised interview) and tampered with witnesses (via Twitter). The question is, is the President immune to such charges?

Nobody disputes the fact of obstruction of justice. It's the conclusion about collusion which is disputed. Just because Trump tried to stop collusion investigation does not mean/prove collusion.

 

[ZiprHead]

The question of obstruction of justice is still open and looks like a very probable charge. The problem is that the obstruction could have actually worked. The reason they may not be able to prove conspiracy or "collusion", if you will, is because the obstruction worked.

Excellent point.

This is exactly how conspiracy theories work. All facts are evidence and all missing facts is evidence of a cover up.

So much for my point being a "conspiracy theory". Mueller's report says exactly what I said above, that the obstruction worked.

 

[barbos]

This is exactly how conspiracy theories work. All facts are evidence and all missing facts is evidence of a cover up.

So much for my point being a "conspiracy theory". Mueller's report says exactly what I said above, that the obstruction worked.

Dude, report says "obstruction did not work"

 

[ZiprHead]

This is exactly how conspiracy theories work. All facts are evidence and all missing facts is evidence of a cover up.

So much for my point being a "conspiracy theory". Mueller's report says exactly what I said above, that the obstruction worked.

Dude, report says "obstruction did not work"

Huh, where?

Mueller said they were lied to, obstructed, and "materially impaired".

 

[barbos]

Dude, report says "obstruction did not work"

Huh, where?

Mueller said they were lied to, obstructed, and "materially impaired".

Someone posted a quote in the Mueller thread. Trump tried to obstruct but his staff sabotaged his attempts.

 

[ZiprHead]

Dude, report says "obstruction did not work"

Huh, where?

Mueller said they were lied to, obstructed, and "materially impaired".

Someone posted a quote in the Mueller thread. Trump tried to obstruct but his staff sabotaged his attempts.

I just looked through the thread since the report was released and I see nothing of the sort of thing you are saying was stated. If I'm wrong, please point it out.

 

[barbos]

Someone posted a quote in the Mueller thread. Trump tried to obstruct but his staff sabotaged his attempts.

I just looked through the thread since the report was released and I see nothing of the sort of thing you are saying was stated. If I'm wrong, please point it out.

https://edition.cnn.com/politics/live-news/robert-mueller-report-public/index.html

Here's what we've learned since we last caught you up:

"This is the end of my Presidency": In May 2017, after President Trump learned from then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions that Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein had appointed Mueller, Trump “slumped back in his chair and said, ‘Oh my God. This is terrible. This is the end of my Presidency. I'm f***ed.’”
Trump tried to remove Mueller: Trump called former White House lawyer Don McGahn at home and directed him to call the acting attorney general and say Mueller "had conflicts of interest and must be removed." McGahn refused.
Why obstruction failed: Mueller said obstruction by President Trump failed because others refused to "carry out orders."
Another note on obstruction: The special counsel wrote about how the President’s public comments can be considered as obstruction efforts because of his power.

 

[ZiprHead]

https://edition.cnn.com/politics/live-news/robert-mueller-report-public/index.html

Here's what we've learned since we last caught you up:

"This is the end of my Presidency": In May 2017, after President Trump learned from then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions that Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein had appointed Mueller, Trump “slumped back in his chair and said, ‘Oh my God. This is terrible. This is the end of my Presidency. I'm f***ed.’”
Trump tried to remove Mueller: Trump called former White House lawyer Don McGahn at home and directed him to call the acting attorney general and say Mueller "had conflicts of interest and must be removed." McGahn refused.
Why obstruction failed: Mueller said obstruction by President Trump failed because others refused to "carry out orders."
Another note on obstruction: The special counsel wrote about how the President’s public comments can be considered as obstruction efforts because of his power.

I think that's a differant subject than the conspiracy/collusion aspect.

 

[barbos]

https://edition.cnn.com/politics/live-news/robert-mueller-report-public/index.html

Here's what we've learned since we last caught you up:

"This is the end of my Presidency": In May 2017, after President Trump learned from then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions that Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein had appointed Mueller, Trump “slumped back in his chair and said, ‘Oh my God. This is terrible. This is the end of my Presidency. I'm f***ed.’”
Trump tried to remove Mueller: Trump called former White House lawyer Don McGahn at home and directed him to call the acting attorney general and say Mueller "had conflicts of interest and must be removed." McGahn refused.
Why obstruction failed: Mueller said obstruction by President Trump failed because others refused to "carry out orders."
Another note on obstruction: The special counsel wrote about how the President’s public comments can be considered as obstruction efforts because of his power.

I think that's a differant subject than the conspiracy/collusion aspect.

Oh, it's different now?
How come? You said "obstruction worked" And according to Mueller it did not work, he was able to investigate what he was hired to investigate.

 

[blastula]

They successfully obstructed in some ways (lying, hiding evidence), but not in others (when officials refused to carry out his orders).

 

[ZiprHead]

I think that's a differant subject than the conspiracy/collusion aspect.

Oh, it's different now?
How come? You said "obstruction worked" And according to Mueller it did not work, he was able to investigate what he was hired to investigate.

From page 9 of the report.

 

[barbos]

They successfully obstructed in some ways (lying, hiding evidence), but not in others (when officials refused to carry out his orders).

Mueller did not believe them, hence they failed.

 

[barbos]

I think that's a differant subject than the conspiracy/collusion aspect.

Oh, it's different now?
How come? You said "obstruction worked" And according to Mueller it did not work, he was able to investigate what he was hired to investigate.

View attachment 21071

From page 9 of the report.

So? Nobody disputes obstruction, it's your claim of of obstruction being reason for the lack of evidence of collusion is being disputed.

 

[steve_bank]

All that is not new. It is propaganda. In the Cold War it was called mind control.

Stalin used the tactics to destabilize post war East Europe to allow takeover by Soviet puppet dictators.

Russia is taking advantage of the basic weakness of our system, unrestricted free speech and no censorship of media. This could never happen in China or Russia.

 

[ZiprHead]

View attachment 21071

From page 9 of the report.

So? Nobody disputes obstruction, it's your claim of of obstruction being reason for the lack of evidence of collusion is being disputed.

Huh? There's evidence of collusion all over the place.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Nobody disputes obstruction, it's your claim of of obstruction being reason for the lack of evidence of collusion is being disputed.

From Mueller’s summaries:

Even when individuals testified or agreed to be interviewed, they sometimes provided information that was false or incomplete, leading to some of the false-statements charges described above. And the Office faced practical limits on its ability to access relevant evidence as well-numerous witnesses and subjects lived abroad, and documents were held outside the United States.

Further, the Office learned that some of the individuals we interviewed or whose conduct we investigated—including some associated with the Trump Campaign—deleted relevant communications or communicated during the relevant period using applications that feature encryption or that do not provide for long-term retention of data or communications records. In such cases, the Office was not able to corroborate witness statements through comparison to contemporaneous communications or fully question witnesses about statements that appeared inconsistent with other known facts.

Accordingly, while this report embodies factual and legal determinations that the Office believes to be accurate and complete to the greatest extent possible, given these identified gaps, the Office cannot rule out the possibility that the unavailable information would shed additional light on (or cast in a new light) the events described in the report.
...
Several features of the conduct we investigated distinguish it from typical obstruction-of-justice cases. First, the investigation concerned the President, and some of his actions, such as firing the FBI director, involved facially lawful acts within his Article II authority, which raises constitutional issues discussed below. At the same time, the President's position as the head of the Executive Branch provided him with unique and powerful means of influencing official proceedings, subordinate officers, and potential witnesses-all of which is relevant to a potential obstruction-of-justice analysis.
...
Third, many of the President's acts directed at witnesses, including discouragement of cooperation with the government and suggestions of possible future pardons, took place in public view. That circumstance is unusual, but no principle of law excludes public acts from the reach of the obstruction laws. If the likely effect of public acts is to influence witnesses or alter their testimony, the harm to the justice system's integrity is the same. Although the series of events we investigated involved discrete acts, the overall pattern of the President's conduct towards the investigations can shed light on the nature of the President's acts and the inferences that can be drawn about his intent.
...
Soon after the firing of Comey and the appointment of the Special Counsel, however, the President became aware that his own conduct was being investigated in an obstruction-of-justice inquiry. At that point, the President engaged in a second phase of conduct, involving public attacks on the investigation, non-public efforts to control it, and efforts in both public and private to encourage witnesses not to cooperate with the investigation. Judgments about the nature of the President's motives during each phase would be informed by the totality of the evidence.

 

[ZiprHead]

Thank you for posting that. I was trying to find it to post it myself.

So, Barbos, you are just plain wrong.

 

[Trausti]

View attachment 21071

From page 9 of the report.

So? Nobody disputes obstruction, it's your claim of of obstruction being reason for the lack of evidence of collusion is being disputed.

Huh? There's evidence of collusion all over the place.

LOL.