The Mueller Investigation

[Skyweir]

Not so ... aamof

As long as the DOJ has a policy of not indicting a sitting president the DOJ will not lay charges against the POTUS.

Reading the Report they is lots of evidence of sooo much wrong doing ... by the Russians and individuals in the Trump campaign.

Its interesting that a number of things prevented conspiracy charges 1. The Trump campaign cleverly destroying evidence and 2. Pure stupidity.

Theres no changing a leopards spots ... and Trump being Trump and his kids inheriting that same gormless streak was their saving grace.

Which leads us to the Impeachment Inquiry ... where we see more of the same. A desire for lawlessness, abuse of power and raw, unadulterated stupidity.

[Skyweir]

Oh and the point of the meme Z is the Mueller Report comparison to the Bible ... ie not that often ever read. Get it?

And yet people pretend they know ALL about it nevertheless and case in point ... Republicans who vocally outraged by it

Youre welcome

[TheFallen]

Yes TF semantics .. well done you .... my expression was poor and unpolished. All my posts are drafted on the run. Sue me.

Sky, I really am not attempting to achieve some small-minded and nit-picking "gotcha" here re your particular careless choice of language.

Instead I am highlighting a central and important point - in fact the whole crux of this thing.

Mueller is distinguishing a fact from evidence of a fact.

Okaaaay, yes those two things are different and as such can legitimately be distinguished... BUT the point remains that something simply cannot be a fact without being sufficiently evidenced.

...it is a fact that must be proven as required by the relevant legislation, jurisprudential principles AND government AND agency policy.

Sorry, again no. NOTHING is or can be a fact UNTIL it is adequately proven.

Do we have a misunderstanding of the word "fact" here? You seem to be using it interchangeably with "unproven supposition" - or claiming that Mueller does so.

He has built an investigation into Russian interference, summarised it within the Report. He articulates his legal approach, the relevant legal reasoning that influenced his decisions, presents the matters he investigated, the evidence collected, the evidence that he did not use, the facts established, the facts not established. And he presents it for consideration ... not to the judiciary to the DOJ & the Congress.

And I almost agree whole-heartedly with that summary...

...EXCEPT FOR the nonsensical and frankly ludicrous oxymoron as highlighted. An "unestablished fact" simply cannot exist, especially in legal parlance - it's almost like Rummie's "unknown unknowns".

Sky... do you HONESTLY believe it legitimate and/or reasonable to call something that by your own admission has NOT been established... a "fact"?

[Skyweir]

Ugh I fear we may be talking at cross purposes here.

As you have correctly stated guilt is proven in court .. ie the facts as relevant, right?

So Mueller is not claiming any point in fact PROVEN .. they are indeed allegations of fact. Im off to bed .. Ill add more tomorrow.

[Zarathustra]

As long as the DOJ has a policy of not indicting a sitting president the DOJ will not lay charges against the POTUS.

As long as there is insufficient evidence for charging him with a crime, that is an irrelevant point.

Reading the Report they is lots of evidence of sooo much wrong doing ... by the Russians and individuals in the Trump campaign.

Name one "wrong doing" by a member of Trumps campaign. And don't tell me to read the report, it is your claim, so it is incumbent upon you to back it up, not for me to research your points.

Its interesting that a number of things prevented conspiracy charges 1. The Trump campaign cleverly destroying evidence and 2. Pure stupidity.

and here we see your bias and close-mindedness on full display. Is it not possible that he could not be charged with a crime because he did not conspire with the Russians? If there is no evidence of him conspiring with the Russians, then how can you just assume that he does?

[Hashi Lebwohl]

One identifying characteristic of all good conspiracy theories is that a "lack of evidence" to prove the theory is, itself, proof of the theory because obviously the perpetrators are destroying evidence to hide the conspiracy. The less proof it exists is more proof that the conspirators are hard at work, shredding documents and erasing hard drives.

[Skyweir]

Haha and the Report finds conclusive evidence of that destruction of evidence

And agency policy is not at all irrelevant it played a key role in how Mueller went about the investigation ... because of that very ill considered policy ... fundamentally making a POTUS above the law ... Muller as he himself explains applied the higher degree of evidence as a result.

Which is why Mueller stated that the findings are NOT an exoneration ... which Trump continually claimed it was. If you read the Report there is a wealth of wrong doing.

And again why he claimed that because of that higher standard of evidence in order to maintain a case against an ordinarily unindictable POTUS ... per the agency policy ... an absence of a particular factual element does not denote a lack of evidence.

[Hashi Lebwohl]

If you read the Report there is a wealth of wrong doing.

Then why aren't House Democrats impeaching Trump over it? The inquiries are all about the phone call with Ukraine. We are the only people still talking about Mueller--even the really left-leaning news sources have moved on from it.

"Not being charged with a crime" is exoneration. That may not be true in the technical sense of the word--in the strict legal sense "exoneration" happens when a conviction is overturned--but in the usual parlance it most definitely is. Trump got exonerated because no one did anything about any findings from Mueller. You don't have to like that fact but you do have to live with it.

[Zarathustra]

Haha and the Report finds conclusive evidence of that destruction of evidence

How do you know? Just because stuff was deleted doesn't mean it was evidence of wrong doing. Did you hold this opinion of the 1000s of emails Hillary deleted from her illegal server?

And agency policy is not at all irrelevant it played a key role in how Mueller went about the investigation ... because of that very ill considered policy ... fundamentally making a POTUS above the law ... Muller as he himself explains applied the higher degree of evidence as a result.

No, this doesn't apply to the conspiracy issue, which was a matter of "conspiracy" vs "collusion," not "to charge" or "not to charge." Agency policy had to do with recommending charges for obstruction. If you have proof of anything to the contrary, post it.

If you read the Report there is a wealth of wrong doing.

so despite throwing your weight around as one of the people who has read it, you can't come up with a single example off the top of your head? What good is reading it if you don't remember it? Why should we believe you read it if you can't cite it?

[Skyweir]

Oh Jesus there is soooo much and you know I could copy and paste some of that shit ,.. or you can get off your ass and go read it yourself then wed both be on the same page

And frankly your immediate dismissal of ANYTHING I write disinclines me from making the requisite effort.

Just read the fucking report.

And yet AGAIN to clarify .. you can make whatever comments you want on the Mueller Investigation but unless youve read the findings you know Jack shit about its contents ... right?

So either be a human that knows jack shit about it or dont... your call.

[Zarathustra]

Oh Jesus there is soooo much and you know I could copy and paste some of that shit ,.. or you can get off your ass and go read it yourself then wed both be on the same page

You think everyone who reads the same text are on the same page? Are you kidding me? So everyone who reads a book has the same opinion? Every Justice who hears a case has the same opinion of the Constitution?

One difference between you and me: if I read it I'd retain enough to give an example when someone asked. For instance, WF and I were discussing how the Mueller Report talks about Manafort giving internal polling data to "the Russians," but it's actually one Russian, an employee of Manafort by the name of Kilimnik. Do you remember the Mueller Report talking about this? Can you give us your take? What were the issues? What did Mueller conclude? Do you remember?

And frankly your immediate dismissal of ANYTHING I write disinclines me from making the requisite effort.

So reading isn't hard, but remembering what you read is. It takes an "effort." Ok. Got it.

Just read the fucking report.

Fuck off. Stop telling me what to do.

And yet AGAIN to clarify .. you can make whatever comments you want on the Mueller Investigation but unless youve read the findings you know Jack shit about its contents ... right?

Wrong. I've never read Moby Dick. But I know it's about Captain Ahab chasing a white whale that has a variety of symbolic interpretations, one of which being obsession, another being revenge. And I know that the Mueller Report found that there was insufficient evidence to charge ANYONE with conspiracy with Russia to affect the election. That's quite a bit more than "jack shit." You see, it's possible to know the "gist" of something without burrowing down into the details.

You've had ample opportunity to convince me that reading the report is not a waste of time. You haven't succeeded. You haven't produced a single example of evidence which might cast doubt on the significance of the Report as I've summarized it above.

[Skyweir]

Yeah whatever ... you are just proving to me that youre just click bate... trolling for any bite you can get.

Enjoy

[Hashi Lebwohl]

You've had ample opportunity to convince me that reading the report is not a waste of time. You haven't succeeded. You haven't produced a single example of evidence which might cast doubt on the significance of the Report as I've summarized it above.

As I noted, even the left-leaning talking heads aren't discussing Mueller any more and they had a vested interest in it containing a smoking gun. It didn't so they dropped it and have moved on to "the Ukranian phone call". Truthfully, since there are no criminal charges to arise from Mueller and it is not a focus of the impeachment inquiry there is no compelling reason to read it at this point in time.

[Skyweir]

Haha so you see no overlapping issues between Ukraine and the Mueller Report .. well I guess you wouldnt if you hadnt read it.

But there are many roads and they all lead to Rome or Russia at least to some degree.

Follow the Stone trial. I posted somewhere Gates testified that Stone regularly updated the Trump campaign re Assanges wikileaks DNC Server docs ... as early as April 2016 before anyone was even aware of the Russian hacking.

Oh Z you can find out more about the DNC Servef hacking by Russian GRU in the Mueller Report.

You can find out more about Cohens role, Gates, Stone, Papadopolous, etc. Its rather explicit.

oh yes and Donnie Jr too ... and oh theres so much more.

Honestly Im looking forward to the public portion of the Impeachment Inquiry where hopefully some of the dots will be joined.

[Hashi Lebwohl]

Oh Z you can find out more about the DNC Servef hacking by Russian GRU in the Mueller Report.

Computer forensic experts already disproved that myth. Keep digging, though.

[Skyweir]

Wrong

[Skyweir]

Youd have a better grasp of the Investigations actual findings if you read it ... but here is a small snapshot from the overview. More and very rigorous detail therein.

RUSSIAN HACKING OPERATIONS
At the same time that the IRA operation began to focus on supporting candidate Trump in early 2016, the Russian government employed a second form of interference: cyber intrusions (hacking) and releases of hacked materials damaging to the Clinton Campaign. The Russian intelligence service known as the Main Intelligence Directorate of the General Staff of the Russian Army (GRU) carried out these operations.

In March 2016, the GRU began hacking the email accounts of Clinton Campaign volunteers and employees, including campaign chairman John Podesta.

In April 2016, the GRU hacked into the computer networks of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) and the Democratic National Committee (DNC).

The GRU stole hundreds of thousands of documents from the compromised email accounts and networks. Around the time that the DNC announced in mid-June 2016 the Russian government's role in hacking its network, the GRU began disseminating stolen materials through the fictitious online personas "DCLeaks" and "Guccifer 2.0." The GRU later released additional materials through the organisation Wikileaks.

And

... The presidential campaign of Donald J. Trump ("Trump Campaign" or "Campaign") showed interest in WikiLeaks's releases of documents and welcomed their potential to damage candidate Clinton. Beginning in June 2016, ... [REDACTED INFO re: Harm to Ongoing Matter] ... forecast to senior Campaign officials that WikiLeaks would release information damaging to candidate Clinton. WikiLeaks's first release came in July 2016.

Around the same time, candidate Trump announced that he hoped Russia would recover emails described as missing from a private server used by Clinton when she was Secretary of State (he later said that he was speaking sarcastically).

WikiLeaks began releasing Podesta's stolen emails on October 7, 2016, less than one hour after a U.S. media outlet released video considered damaging to candidate Trump. Section III of this Report details the Office's investigation into the Russian hacking operations, as well as other efforts by Trump Campaign supporters to obtain Clinton-related emails.

[Hashi Lebwohl]

We posted about the actual findings on the DNC hack in a different thread. Do a search for "Forensicator" and read up on it. The data transfer rate proves that it wasn't remotely hacked. Don't let me dissuade you from beleiving what you wish to beleive, though.

The DNC and Hillary would have had a better case if they had ever let the FBI investigate the servers as opposed to hiding them away. I presume they had something to hide.

[Skyweir]

I have every reason to believe the Report findings ... they proved Russian interference and the hacking of the DNC Servers.

Thats sufficiently authoritative.

[wayfriend]

The data transfer rate proves that it wasn't remotely hacked.

Only to idiots who don't understand technology.