THE REPORT, buttoned up (SCO Thread v. 33)

[glenwo2]

So what else is new?



Oh look....MORE :

 

[Darkballs]

Have a nice day)

I'm just saying that if you read the report you'd see the numerous examples of obstruction laid out by Mueller, and that your social media posts declaring "Mueller knew in 2018 that there was no obstruction," were patently false.

But run away.

 

[glenwo2]

What changed, indeed?

 

[andnowweknow]

So you don't have time to read the report, but you have hours to spend collecting social media posts that slam the report you didn't read.

And you wonder why you're so utterly uninformed.

Look at the social media he's using as sources.

 

[glenwo2]

Look at the social media he's using as sources.

Social media sources that use actual events that took place on TV? (eg. Nadler then and now)

You can slam the ones who put up the tweet but it doesn't make the source any less credible since it's not like they fabricated a video or anything.

 

[andnowweknow]

Social media sources that use actual events that took place on TV? (eg. Nadler then and now)

@MAGAindex

 

[glenwo2]

@MAGAindex

Oh! I see now.

So MAGAindex is Crap, you're saying.

Got it.

 

[Jorge Luis Borges]

With Russia. But they did coordinate through wikileaks with russia.

1. OK, and Mueller did not consider that to rise to the level of collusion, conspiracy, or coordination between the Trump campaign and Russian attempts to interfere with the election. But you do. You are trying to make this personal, because the factual approach is going poorly for you.

You think the Trump campaign coordinated indirectly with the Russians. Mueller does not.

2. You think I am being dishonest because I have not comprehensively addressed every detail that can be used to make trump or his campaign look bad. I have no doubt that many details in this report do make Trump look bad. But after two years of hearing how Trump colluded with Russia to "hack the election" it is appropriate to focus heavily on the bombshell news from Mueller that the collusion theories are way off base and that the available evidence does not support any charges along those lines. Van Jones was right all along!

Now, as to the fact that an intensive two year investigation into politicians and high level bureaucrats unearthed shadiness and an unwillingness to cooperate with a partisan investigation. I have three responses:
1. People who committed crimes should pay for them regardless of who they were. Trump should not employ pardons in any of these matters, nor is he himself above the law. Manafort is a good example of a guy who was exposed as a person criminally exploiting his position and deserves the jail sentence he got. It's a valid and compelling criticism of Trump that he employed Manafort and others of his ilk.
2. This is pretty minor stuff compared to what we were assured by Dems and the media for several years regarding the outcome of Mueller's investigation. Trump did not cooperate with the Russians in their nefarious activities nor did he criminally obstruct justice. Suggesting Mueller somehow nailed Trump based on these far lesser issues is a massive moving of the goalposts and alrgely an attempt at cya by Mueller. The key finding of Mueller's report is that Trump didn't do anything illegal and he did not collude with Russia.
3. Heads should roll in the DoJ and particularly in the FBI. First, Comey concluding Hillary shouldn't be charged but that he should hold a press conference directly prior to an election in which he aired her non-criminal dirty laundry was an abuse of his investigative powers. Mueller doing the equivalent to trump, clearing him of the charges but painting as shady a picture of him as possible is equally irresponsible. The FBI has no place to interfere in elections and politics like that, and the continuous illegal leaks are a further evidence of how politicized this organization has become. There needs to be accountability in an org that screwed both Hillary and Trump while clearing them of actual criminal wrongdoing.

 

[glenwo2]

Mark Levin UNHINGED!




Yikes.

 

[waiguoren]

They deserve aggressive rhetoric.

We shouldn't make foreign policy on the basis of what we perceive that other nations "deserve".

I just don't see why we need to smile and shake hands with the most powerful mafia boss that ever existed.

Is your position that our president should scowl and wave his finger at Putin upon meeting him?

When you refer to Putin as a "mafia boss", I assume you are referring primarily to accusations of extra-judicial killings possibly tied to the Kremlin. I don't know if Putin has been involved in any of that, but it wouldn't surprise me. However, it's not really relevant unless you think we should overthrow Putin. In cases in which the evidence is a "slam-dunk"---yes, that is a jab at the CIA and a reminder that we don't always know what we think we know---then I do think our president should attempt to pressure the Kremlin to clean up their act. Even then, there is big risk. If we go public with it, we risk severe backlash from the Russian voters, who would probably perceive our president's speaking up as foreign interference and could help Putin to consolidate even more power as a result. Private pressure is often better.

We cannot ignore Russia, a nuclear power and the nation with the 11th largest GDP in the world, the 9th largest population in the world, the largest territory in the world. The US and Russia have many areas of common interest including Syria, Iran, resource exploration, North Korea, science and technology. The aggressive approach you seem to be calling for makes all of this much more difficult.

Finally, note that most Russian people love Putin. Independent polling consistently shows him to hold approval ratings that US politics can only dream of. The anti-Putin Moscow Times recently ran with the headline "Putin’s Approval Rating Lowest Since 2013 — Poll" in response to an independent poll showing Putin at "only" 66% approval. You're slinging heavy accusations at Putin, but I assume the Russian people know him better than we do and they don't seem to agree with you.

Say what? What are your thoughts on his tone with Mexico, Canada and European allies? Trump shits on our real allies and sucks up to strongmen like Putin and KJU and this is a strong point?!?

I think this is just wrong and I think the MSM has blown this way out of proportion.

 

[waiguoren]

I think you are overlooking the profound differences between the societies and governments of China and Russia, along with their goals.

Could you please elaborate?

 

[The Big Bang]

I would post a befitting gif here, but I was banned from doing that. -_-

 

[hillelslovak87]

Could you please elaborate?

Do I need to elaborate on the different natures of Chinese and Russian society and governance? Come on, man.

The Vor presence in Russia's oligarch and governance, for example, is a pretty big one.

 

[waiguoren]

Do I need to elaborate on the different natures of Chinese and Russian society and governance? Come on, man.

The Vor presence in Russia's oligarch and governance, for example, is a pretty big one.

The "Vor presence"?

My comment did not claim that Russia and China are equivalent. The point I was made is that many nations have influenced the elections of other nations, and we are no different. The US has interfered in Russia's elections repeatedly.

To cut off relations or to take other drastic actions over this would be foolish because we need to work with Russia on issues including conflict in the Middle East, nuclear proliferation, and resource rights.

 

[Juventud]

This is where just listening to right wing media spin will have you looking like a fool.

Legitimate news agencies and journalists actually read the report.
No matter how bad the report looks Hannity, Tucker, Ingraham, Dershowitz were all going to spin it in his favor.

"Orange man bad" doesn't make obstruction of justice go away.

 

[ShadowRun]

That’s a very bad comparison.

Trump is literally Hitler

 

[Darkballs]

You think the Trump campaign coordinated indirectly with the Russians. Mueller does not.

Mueller points out they used a third party as an intermediary. It's spelled out rather plainly in the report, which I've linked numerous times to you.

2. You think I am being dishonest because I have not comprehensively addressed every detail that can be used to make trump or his campaign look bad.

You've only addressed one thing: Mueller's "conclusion" while stripping away all other facts and context to the contrary. You won't even touch obstruction, no matter how many times you're asked.

I have no doubt that many details in this report do make Trump look bad.

Part of you hates yourself for having to admit it.

But after two years of hearing how Trump colluded with Russia to "hack the election" it is appropriate to focus heavily on the bombshell news from Mueller that the collusion theories are way off base and that the available evidence does not support any charges along those lines.

This is a bullshit summary of the purpose of the investigation. An investigation that netted a record result of criminal indictments and criminal sentences. You keep using worthless phrases like "hack the election" and the non-criminal term "collusion" so that you can point to it and screech that these definitions were not met to a T.

2. This is pretty minor stuff compared to what we were assured by Dems and the media for several years regarding the outcome of Mueller's investigation.

People from all over the spectrum had a billion different predictions, speculating on the contents of the report. I don't know why you think we should care about any one group's guesses, when we now have the report in front of us.

nor did he criminally obstruct justice.

Only if you accept Barr's conclusion that even though trump certainly tried to obstruct justice, he's not guilty because he was turned down. Is that your position?

And no, Mueller did not conclude that trump did not obstruct justice. He clearly said there was evidence of it, proceeded to lay out about 10 different instances of it, but said that he would not recommend an indictment solely because that is current DOJ policy.

You couldn't have given a more dishonest summary if you tried.

 

[hillelslovak87]

The "Vor presence"?

My comment did not claim that Russia and China are equivalent. The point I was made is that the many nations have influenced the elections of other nations, and we are no different. The US has interfered in Russia's elections repeatedly.

To cut off relations or to take other drastic actions over this would be foolish because we need to work with Russia on issues including conflict in the Middle East, nuclear proliferation, and resource rights.

You're overlooking one fact: Russia is hostile to the west. They don't actually want to work with us, they want to beat us down, simple as that. They're government is corrupt to the core, and cannot be relied upon by any Western democratic institution.

 

[Happy Man]

The Russian intel (GRU) had only one directive.

To hack into the DNC and steal information that could be used to turn the electon to favour Donald Trump.

But yeah...

That's nothing, right?

And giving emails to Wikileaks...?

Hmmm. I wonder who could be used as a cutout to ferry such information around...

Spoiler

Comey already said it wasn’t the Russians. Democrats day it’s the Russians for political purposes.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.fo...ow-apart-the-russian-collusion-narrative/amp/

 

[hillelslovak87]

Mark Levin UNHINGED!




Yikes.

Does Mark Levin, supposed legal expert, know that even if Mueller had been convinced Trump did collude, say, it wouldn't be up to Mueller to produce charges?