It's Mueller Time!

[markw]

You mean this Paul Manafort?

https://www.npr.org/2019/02/13/694565971/manafort-intentionally-lied-to-special-counsel-judge-says

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/legal-issues/us-judge-finds-paul-manafort-lied-to-mueller-probe-about-contacts-with-russian-aide/2019/02/13/c5209f7a-2f2c-11e9-86ab-5d02109aeb01_story.html?utm_term=.36e5a2a1b12d

 

[TankTop5]

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Trell]

Some posters seems to believe that anyone that thinks that the Mueller report contains very disturbing evidence and information must automatically be liberals or worse. That narrative, of course, is not true.

So when a month old member, with a 100+ posts and none in "The Steam Vent", marks 3 posts with dislike and one with disagree, he is greeted with a "I'm stalked" type thread (now removed) complaining the poster is "crybaby" (with picture, of course) and "liberal". None of us know his political leanings because he has not uttered any.

I'll post a YouTube video, first posted by @<eargiant, of prominent Republicans on part II of the Mueller report on obstruction, and none can in good faith call them "liberals".

"Featured in the video are Donald Ayer, Paul Rosenzweig, and Jeffrey Harris. Donald served as the Deputy Attorney General under President HW Bush, Paul was Senior Counsel to Special Counsel Ken Starr and Deputy Assistant Secretary of Homeland Security under President Bush, and Jeffrey served as Deputy Associate Attorney General for President Reagan and Principal Assistant to Rudy Giuliani."​

​

Edit: There is a little longer version of the video that I link to instead.

 

[markw]

Well, troll, since you brought this up, here goes.

when one simply throws stones and doesn't have enough of their own to at least participate to explain their hatred, it bespeaks of the typical liberal mindset where they expect others to do the thinking and work while they just quietly sit on the sidelines, jump into the dogpile, and complain.

Not one stone. mind you, but five within a matter of minutes.

If that's not a typical liberal crybaby I don't know what is.

Why not come out and play with the big boys, Sven1olaf? Then we can discuss our differences like men. I don't bite. I just refute bullshit that you apparently believe, which you don't like.

Oh, troll? Ever heard the term "RINO"?

 

[herbu]

Are you familiar with the term, "Fact-Resistant Human"?



I am curious, which word in this snippet is most offensive to you? Can you put them in order from most to least?



From Pg. 6 of The Report On The Investigation Into Russian Interference In The
2016 Presidential Election:
"Separately, on August 2, 2016, Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort met in New YorkCity with his long-time business associate Konstantin Kilimnik, who the FBI assesses to have ties to Russian intelligence. Kilimnik requested the meeting to deliver in person a peace plan for Ukraine that Manafort acknowledged to the Special Counsel's Office was a "backdoor" way forRussia to control part of eastern Ukraine; both men believed the plan would require candidateTrump's assent to succeed (were he to be elected President)."

With that in mind, that fake-news link you shared attempts to frame this as Mueller is indicting a good person, or that people who do work for the government cannot/ should not be indicted. Care to explain how you came to defend such an absurd conclusion?



Oh look, there's another one! Fact-Resistant Human

Son, "denial" is not just a river in Africa. You have nothing.

 

[Trell]

It is amazing. The Democracy we enjoy in this country may get over thrown simply because of its own citizen's unwillingness/inability to read to the SECOND PARAGRAPH!

https://www.justice.gov/storage/report.pdf

For reference, here is the paragraph @TheWarrior mentions:

"The Russian government interfered in the 2016 presidential election in sweeping and systematic fashion. Evidence of Russian government operations began to surface in mid-2016. In June, the Democratic National Committee and its cyber response team publicly announced that Russian hackers had compromised its computer network. Releases of hacked materials-hacks that public reporting soon attributed to the Russian government-began that same month. Additional releases followed in July through the organization WikiLeaks, with further releases in October and November." [my italics]​

The Mueller, in his public statement, says at the end (https://www.vox.com/2019/5/29/18644237/robert-mueller-remarks-transcript)

"And I will close by reiterating the central allegation of our indictments — that there were multiple, systematic efforts to interference in our election. That allegation deserves the attention of every American." [my italics]​

I'll close with what the WW2 correspondent Murrow (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_R._Murrow) once said:

"Good night, and good luck" [my italics]​

 

[TheWarrior]

I just watched the House Judiciary Committee Hearing.... I think impeachment is imminent. They outlined 4 examples in the Mueller Report that regardless of the order not being carried out, constitute Obstruction of Justice.

The behavior demonstrated in this Hearing tells just how deep the corruption has run - there is a pretty significant difference between those that were reciting a quote and those that were reading a script!

 

[TankTop5]

I just watched the House Judiciary Committee Hearing.... I think impeachment is imminent. They outlined 4 examples in the Mueller Report that regardless of the order not being carried out, constitute Obstruction of Justice.

The behavior demonstrated in this Hearing tells just how deep the corruption has run - there is a pretty significant difference between those that were reciting a quote and those that were reading a script!

So what’s your goal? Impeachment? If the House votes to impeach but the Senate can prove that Russian collusion was created by the DNC and Hillary campaign will the Senate remove him and will that help or hurt his re-election odds?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Trell]

So what’s your goal? Impeachment? If the House votes to impeach but the Senate can prove that Russian collusion was created by the DNC and Hillary campaign will the Senate remove him and will that help or hurt his re-election odds?

I'm not sure I follow you here. Are you trying to say that because DNC and the Hillary campaign was hacked by the Russians they created the Russian collusion? That sounds far-fetched.

 

[TankTop5]

I'm not sure I follow you here. Are you trying to say that because DNC and the Hillary campaign was hacked by the Russians they created the Russian collusion? That sounds far-fetched.

I’m sure you’ll balk at the source website but these are thousands of FOIA docs and court transcripts. There’s literally a mountain of factual evidence and the main stream media is completely ignoring it. Let’s wait for DOJ report to be released very soon, they have access to even more evidence. This is going to be fun, happy reading!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Trell]

I’m sure you’ll balk at the source website but these are thousands of FOIA docs and court transcripts. There’s literally a mountain of factual evidence and the main stream media is completely ignoring it. Let’s wait for DOJ report to be released very soon, they have access to even more evidence. This is going to be fun, happy reading!

Yeah, I'm more than a little sceptical to your claim that the Clinton campaign created the Russian collusion because they where hacked by the Russians, to put it mildly. Just reading the first 8 pages of the first volume of the Mueller report (https://www.justice.gov/storage/report.pdf) shows that this claim is nonsense.

I'm also certain that if there was any truth to your claim the Trump administration would not have stonewalled the release of the redacted parts of the Mueller report or the underlying evidence, or blocking witnesses from testifying in Congress.

If that "literally a mountain of factual evidence" existed I'm also certain that it would not ignored by the main stream media. Fox "News" certainly wouldn't ignore it, but I'm not watching that channel, so perhaps they've gone through all that "evidence" and found nothing?

 

[highfigh]

For reference, here is the paragraph @TheWarrior mentions:

"The Russian government interfered in the 2016 presidential election in sweeping and systematic fashion. Evidence of Russian government operations began to surface in mid-2016. In June, the Democratic National Committee and its cyber response team publicly announced that Russian hackers had compromised its computer network. Releases of hacked materials-hacks that public reporting soon attributed to the Russian government-began that same month. Additional releases followed in July through the organization WikiLeaks, with further releases in October and November." [my italics]​

The Mueller, in his public statement, says at the end (https://www.vox.com/2019/5/29/18644237/robert-mueller-remarks-transcript)

"And I will close by reiterating the central allegation of our indictments — that there were multiple, systematic efforts to interference in our election. That allegation deserves the attention of every American." [my italics]​

I'll close with what the WW2 correspondent Murrow (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_R._Murrow) once said:

"Good night, and good luck" [my italics]​

OK, what was released? If that was so damaging, why did the DNC have it in their computers? How did the DNC respond to this? Why weren't their acts of destroying phones and hard drives seen as obstruction? Why were no charges brought on their own merits, rather than avoiding this by saying "No reasonable prosecutor would file charges"?

That last statement shows no indication of who was responsible or involved. How does that equal proof of complicity by ANYONE?

Yes, it deserves the attention of every American- why was the DNC's computer network so easy to breach and why was their information not secured? Maybe it was a case of "Let's make this easier for the Russians and let it turn into a scandal".

I'm just asking questions, but the lack of specificity is glaring. Was it because the information was redacted?

 

[TheWarrior]

So what’s your goal? Impeachment? If the House votes to impeach but the Senate can prove that Russian collusion was created by the DNC and Hillary campaign will the Senate remove him and will that help or hurt his re-election odds?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The Mueller Report goes into great detail about 4 specific examples where the President actively sought to Obstruct the investigation. Obstruction of Justice charges are NOT dependent on the order actually being carried out, as Intent was displayed in plain sight.

The Report also details the ONGOING attack by Russia to convince American's of these false narrative's, that you continue to share.

IIRC Pg 80-96 of Vol. 1 provide much better insight in to "how this all began' and why it is still going on. But again, that requires you to be willing to actually read this report.

OK, what was released? If that was so damaging, why did the DNC have it in their computers? How did the DNC respond to this? Why weren't their acts of destroying phones and hard drives seen as obstruction? Why were no charges brought on their own merits, rather than avoiding this by saying "No reasonable prosecutor would file charges"?

That last statement shows no indication of who was responsible or involved. How does that equal proof of complicity by ANYONE?

Yes, it deserves the attention of every American- why was the DNC's computer network so easy to breach and why was their information not secured? Maybe it was a case of "Let's make this easier for the Russians and let it turn into a scandal".

I'm just asking questions, but the lack of specificity is glaring. Was it because the information was redacted?

Read the Report.

"That last statement shows no indication of who was responsible or involved."

That statement, is the SECOND PARAGRAPH of the INTRODUCTION. And it most certainly states at least one entity involved - RUSSIA!

 

[TankTop5]

I think you misunderstand what I’m saying. YES RUSSIA INTERFERED WITH THE ELECTION. Completely separate, the DNC and Hillary campaign made it look like Trump was colluding with the Russians.

Trump already had ongoing professional contacts with Russia. = fact

A front runner for the President of the United States will normally have open communications with high level Russian diplomats. = fact

Trump said a couple dumb things about Russia hacking Democrats to get Hillary’s illegally deleted emails. = fact

DMC and Hillary campaign jumped on the opportunity and paid to have the fraudulent Steele Dossier created. = fact

More fraud for FISA warrants 3/4 = fact

I linked freedom of information act and court documents with links to all these facts.

Trump has a huge ego and the Mueller report was embarrassing so he didn’t want it to get out like a big dumb dumb = fact


Now the question is, are they really going to impeach the big dumb dumb for getting his hand coughs in the cookie jar that the Democrats put out. NOPE, they are just going to keep up the spin through the election and hope two things. First that Barr doesn’t find enough to put people in prison. Second that they can influence enough people to win the next election = 1 is fact and 2 is dilution!



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Trell]

OK, what was released? If that was so damaging, why did the DNC have it in their computers? How did the DNC respond to this? Why weren't their acts of destroying phones and hard drives seen as obstruction? Why were no charges brought on their own merits, rather than avoiding this by saying "No reasonable prosecutor would file charges"?

That last statement shows no indication of who was responsible or involved. How does that equal proof of complicity by ANYONE?

Yes, it deserves the attention of every American- why was the DNC's computer network so easy to breach and why was their information not secured? Maybe it was a case of "Let's make this easier for the Russians and let it turn into a scandal".

I'm just asking questions, but the lack of specificity is glaring. Was it because the information was redacted?

At this time, June 2019, I find it a bit weird that someone asks "OK, what was released" in the Russian hacking of DNC and the Hillary campaign and then go on to blame the victim. In particular to the response of my post where I quoted the official Mueller report and his public statement that only mentions the Russian attacks on the US 2016 election, and gave links for you to verify the quotes.

That said, I'm not that surprised by this response, considering other posts in this very thread by several posters. This was in part why I added at the end of my post, tongue-in-cheek, the "Good night, and good luck" quote that is explained as

"At the end of 1940, with every night's German bombing raid, Londoners who might not necessarily see each other the next morning often closed their conversations with 'good night, and good luck.' "​

 

[Trell]

Edit: Removed as it was a "duplicate" of #758, except missing one quote. Strange things happens when you have multiple tabs open at the same time....

 

[TankTop5]

The Mueller Report goes into great detail about 4 specific examples where the President actively sought to Obstruct the investigation. Obstruction of Justice charges are NOT dependent on the order actually being carried out, as Intent was displayed in plain sight!

I notice you selectively leave out Russian collusion which was the entire point of the investigation. Yes there was Russian interference, and yes Trump did not want to report to get out. But you absolutely 100% avoid the question of why the report and the investigation was started and that turned out to be a complete fraud. In light of that Trump did not want to be embarrassed and tried to stop the report getting out like a big dumb dumb. Mountain of evidence that the Hillary campaign and the DNC started this completely fraudulent investigation and violated federal law in having the FISA courts allow it. The real question is will Barr be able to prove it. There is zero chance the house impeaches Trump, all they’re going to do is run their mouth and let the media spin this until the election.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Trell]

I think you misunderstand what I’m saying. YES RUSSIA INTERFERED WITH THE ELECTION. Completely separate, the DNC and Hillary campaign made it look like Trump was colluding with the Russians.

I think that you have to give some credible sources for this claim, but so far you have not. Your original response to the claim was a not persuasive post with a reply that you have not refuted:

I’m sure you’ll balk at the source website but these are thousands of FOIA docs and court transcripts. There’s literally a mountain of factual evidence and the main stream media is completely ignoring it. Let’s wait for DOJ report to be released very soon, they have access to even more evidence. This is going to be fun, happy reading!

 

[TankTop5]

I think that you have to give some credible sources for this claim, but so far you have not. Your original response to the claim was a not persuasive post with a reply that you have not refuted:

I apologize is court documents and freedom of information reports aren’t enough for you.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Trell]

I apologize is court documents and freedom of information reports aren’t enough for you.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You could begin with documenting your sources for your outlandish claims, as requested in other posts, which you so far have refused to do. Why is that?