She hads high standards
The Mueller Report
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
Interesting if true
Big if true
I’m going to induce from that that the senior law inforcement is a Trump operative at the DOJ, possibly Barr, who is framing the evidence of collusion as evidence of manipulation which has been their tactic all along.
“We thought we were going there to discuss Russian adoptions”.
“How were we to know that Wikileaks and Guccifer2.0 are or operate in conjunction with the FSB?”
“How did we know that Kislyak was acting on behalf of the Russian Government?”
“We thought we were going there to discuss Russian adoptions”.
“How were we to know that Wikileaks and Guccifer2.0 are or operate in conjunction with the FSB?”
“How did we know that Kislyak was acting on behalf of the Russian Government?”
Yea but what's new? We've been complaining about media impartiality and fact checking for as long as I can remember. I'm talking about people in general.... Loads of people jump on narratives without the facts, always been the case but with Google within reach most of the time, and the amount of times people end up being duped you'd think we'd all be a bit more careful. Right now it's fool me once, fool me as many times as you want....
And yes, I do it too (from time to time) but I at least, actively try not to, or catch myself when I do. Some others just double down and put up the blinders. No critical thought... No questions just acceptance. If you treat all your sources the same (with a pinch of salt), and look for some type of evidence or proof no matter where its coming from, you're better off.
Personally, I don't know how involved in the Russia thing Trump is, but there's clearly something there wrt him, his family as his campaign... The exoneration arguement is pure BS, imo.
This is why everyone should want the report released to Congress (with redactions related security clearance), and to the American people in some form.
Was it? Did it?
Yes. Yes he is.
Reasonable assumption, but at this point that's all it is. We on the same page though...
No Collusion bruv! You both are the only 2 posters to say it ITT.
Last edited:
Personally I think Trump and his people were more guilty of textbook conspiracy/collusion type stuff with Netanyahu and bin Salman's people than Russia. And from what I have seen in the past year I am far more worried about the far right from Israeli and Saudi Arabia's influencing US policy than Russia.
Yes I'd say it's highly likely that the report will contain damning evidence, given what we've seen take place in public, and what Barr has already said:
Why would the AG need to discuss "difficult issues" of law with the Office of Legal Counsel to determine whether to prosecute the president, if there wasn't substantive evidence? That's a Trump appointee telling you right there that he wasn't sure whether or not the president committed a crime, and he had to investigate it with the help of an organisation that "typically deal with legal issues of particular complexity and importance or about which two or more agencies are in disagreement", i.e. folks who deal with particularly tricky legal issues.
Even just on the Russian conspiracy, we have very little clue what this refers to:
Given that Kushner was considered a national security risk, Flynn was kicked out without much explanation, and the very limited detail we do have on Russian contacts, there's plenty of reason to suspect this alludes to something very serious. He provided absolutely zero detail on it because it was unrelated to whether or not Trump and co. committed a crime in doing so, but that doesn't mean they didn't fumble their incompetent asses into some shady shit.
Oh sorry, we didn't know we couldn't do that.
I always found the below quote odd, esp from the Special Counsel and Attorney General.
It is in direct conflict with "presumption of innocence" which is one of the basic fundamentals of any legal system i.e. Innocent until proven guilty. If it cannot be concluded that President committed any crime, then the question of exoneration is moot and doesn't arise at all.
What I feel is that the report has evidence of president's connections with Russia (not that significant to be deemed collusion but still present) and some of his action may be construed as obstruction of justice. Since the interpretation of that 'may be' would be the key, perhaps there is a difference of opinion about those stickability of the issues between SC & AG making them 'difficult'. This is in line with the rumours floating that AG version of the release is a vanilla narrative that benefits Trump and does not present to full coloured version. Perhaps if full report is released and the 'difficult' bits are not redacted citing confidentiality, the public may come to know.
The Democrats now not only want the Mueller Report but want Mueller to testify.
I'm sure that will clear everything up nicely.
You can bet Trump will do his damn best to prevent Mueller from testifying if he can.
I'm sure that will clear everything up nicely.
You can bet Trump will do his damn best to prevent Mueller from testifying if he can.
Would be awesome if they can make that happen. Perhaps under some House committee?
at the least.
We must remember that Mueller would have done his work under the guidelines and parameters he was given.
He will then testify what he could conclude under those restrictions
My reading of it is that isn't a comment about alleged criminality, but alleged misconduct. What he did didn't reach the bar for criminal prosecution, but they're not fitting of a president. In which case it seems entirely appropriate to say for the record that his misconduct prevents him from being exonerated.
I largely agree, but then I don't understand your original question? What you've outlined this would be damning evidence, that we've not yet seen.
I was referring to original purpose of the investigation. Did he collude with Russia? Did Russia fix the elections? I was expecting the report to indict more key people or open up a broader investigation based on it's findings. Wasn't misconduct what this report was supposed to investigate? We knew from day 1 there was misconduct and I was hoping this report would crystallize that, yet feel we are back to where we started...just speculating.
We've only had a 4 page 'summary' that's why. We barely know anything more than we did a month ago, just an assertion that there's nothing to see here... Patience.
There’s currently around 30 investigations into Trump and Trump Org which have stemmed from the Mueller investigation. Bank fraud, money laundering, emoluments, campaign finance violations, tax violations, you name it.
Barr’s 4 page “summary” touched on two specific issues, carefully phrased to reduce scope.
It was basically “We did not find a contract signed by Trump and Putin” and “The SCO did not come to the conclusion that he obstructed justice, therefor I cannot”.
Caveat being that Mueller is an investigator and prosecutor, it is not within his powers to find anyone guilty. He can only present the evidence and let those with the authority decide. Barr may well be correct in saying that the President cannot be indicted, he’s 100% wrong in blocking the House from carrying out the necessary oversight though.
Nah that's not what you said...you were talking about the report in general.
Muller was not investigating whether the Russians fixed the elections. That was media hyperbole and recognised as such at the time. What he was investigating was whether they interfered. And he found that they did. It's only because of misplaced expectations that this seems like a small thing.
We don't know much about the Russian "collusion" aspect beyond the fact he didn't commit a crime. I think the majority of people presumed that if he did anything on that front it would be unlikely to meet the threshold of criminal conduct. There could still be a lot wrong with non-criminal conduct. At the very least we know there are things to raise suspicions.
We know he was not charged with either thing. That's not barely anything, man. Just re-read the thread if you think that wasn't one of the main things people wanted to know.
It kind of is though unless you were expecting charges here? Personally, and I've said this before in here, I'm none the wiser...
Are we seriously saying that a significant portion of the speculation was not around whether his offences amounted to criminal behaviour?
Feck knows, you tell me. Haven't got a clue what other people were speculating...
Weird. You posted there over 100 times, likely entered that thread over 1,000 times, you were one of the top 25 most active posters in the thread over a period of 18 months, you quoted lots of people speculating, and yet you have no recollection of whether people were discussing criminality...in a thread about a criminal case.
This is why people are "gloating". Because people are pretending the primary focus of the speculation was barely even part of the conversation. And that all happened after Barr's memo. For obvious reasons.
He was authorized to prosecute guilty parties. Yes, he's not judge, jury and executioner...but he has powers to bring guilty parties to trial/courts. What I meant was he didn't find anything significant that could bring the Presidency to question.
Nope. The intention in his appointment was for collusion in specific and not Russian interference in general. And whether the collusion had a impact in fixing the elections.
I agree that the expectation was that results would actually impact presidency directly or his close associates if not him directly...which was a media blow up and ultimately blown up to nothing.
He was authorized to prosecute guilty parties. Yes, he's not judge, jury and executioner...but he has powers to bring guilty parties to trial/courts. What I meant was he didn't find anything significant that could bring the Presidency to question.
Nope. The intention in his appointment was for collusion in specific and not Russian interference in general. And whether the collusion had a impact in fixing the elections.
I agree that the expectation was that results would actually impact presidency directly or his close associates if not him directly...which was a media blow up and ultimately blown up to nothing.
In that very document it mentions the "investigation of the Russian government's efforts to interfere in the presidential election". My point was not that the central focus wasn't "collusion", but that they were never investigating whether the Russians fixed the elections. That was media hyperbole. They were investigating the extent and impact of the interference, and yes, the possible "collusion". Hence why the next paragraph mentioned what we don't know about that - I wasn't ignoring it.
I've said it already mate I'm not as invested as some of you are. I read bits, I participate, I make jokes. Then I go and live my llife... I'll take your word for it.
People speak about loads of shit in loads of threads, bit much to expect me to keep track of all of it?
Control the message, set the narrative.
Sadly this.
It damaged CNN, MSNBC, CBS, etc hugely even in the eyes of people who hate Trump.
It also gave Trump ammo to scream NO COLLUSION and FULLY EXONERATED with credibility of sorts which couldn't be answered back.
Obviously his base won't have changed their opinions but they've now got evidence from someone they believe to be the authority that there was nothing to it so it solidifies them.
Trump won massively even though he wasn't actually exonerated and that means a lot.
It's straight from Goebbels playbook.
It's hard to believe that someone could follow a story for 18 months and not be aware of one of the central narratives. It might be true in your case but it's very hard to believe. Particularly in the context of this thread, where you have people who were firmly invested in the criminal elements of the Russian collusion and obstruction of justice, and their response has been to...
- Downplay the criminal outcomes, and pretend it was all about the political outcomes
- Change focus to the spin off elements of the criminal investigation
- Refuse to accept Barr's memo as anything other than political propaganda
Barr was invited to meet DoJ officials on day he submitted memo critical of Mueller
Revealed: The attorney general, then a private lawyer, called the special counsel’s obstruction of justice inquiry into Trump ‘fatally misconceived’:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...r-memo-meeting-justice-department-steve-engel
Revealed: The attorney general, then a private lawyer, called the special counsel’s obstruction of justice inquiry into Trump ‘fatally misconceived’:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...r-memo-meeting-justice-department-steve-engel
We're a group of individuals... Not a block of posters who think the same. High post count/participation doesn't mean anything. You've been here long enough to know that.... Christ I have a hard enough time remembering what I promised the missus a week ago.
Remember what other posters were saying in one of the many threads I frequent on RedCafe over the course of a year plus? Come on... I could look, but like I said, not invested enough for that.
It's not about what specific posters were saying but participating in a moving discussion that contained a core narrative. It is unusual not to be conscious of that core narrative. Not impossible, just unusual. You can't hold it against me for assuming the most likely reality!
Slip of the tongue..He means the heavily redacted Barr report.
The expectation of what could or would come out of the investigation w/r/t Trump himself, especially on the question of criminality, also changed over time.
Trump fired Sessions over his recusal on the investigation and appointed Barr, who refused to recuse himself and had publicly spoken out against the idea of prosecuting a president over an obstruction charge. That was all done specifically for a reason, no?
Yes Trump was very open about thinking Sessions was an embarrassment for not protecting the president from the investigation. Yes Barr was moved up the list of replacements because he was viewed as being a particularly useful protector for the president on this particular issue.
None of that influenced Muller's decision to charge the president with either crime. That is the essential thing that you keep talking around rather than talking about.
Did Trump commit a crime? Muller ultimately decided...probably not. Did lots of people think Trump committed a crime, on these two core issues? Yes, there's a shitload of evidence of it. Is it reasonable to conclude that these people were wrong? Yes. Yet instead of reflecting on that they're acting like it never happened, moving onto to next Trump conspiracy. That's nuts.
You have to remember that Muller is a Republican that oversaw the rounding up of Muslims in New York and was part of the WoMD debacle. As much as people wanted him to be impartial he isn't.
It's a conversation you can't reasonably expect to hold at this point one way or the other.
Out of curiosity, what would "reflecting on that" look like? What *should* people be doing?
Literally everyone who has ever worked with him says he's a by the book guy who is as impartial as they come.
There was nothing straight about the WoMD debacle not this side of the pond or that side either. Anybody that was involved with it should be stained by the issue. Blair is tainted by his part in it over here. No one wants to know him now as he is damaged goods.
Within that frame though. Which means he is culpable for WMD thing where the misguided opinion of a single CIA junior analyst got presented falsely as the consensus opinion when in fact the consensus opinion of the US top nuclear experts at Oak Ridge National Lab concluded it wasn't WMD (yet both Republicans and Dems like HRC completely failed to recognize that information)