GOP lawmaker takes out textbook, tells Mueller he doesn't have 'power to exonerate'

Discussion in 'United States' started by icehole3, Jul 25, 2019.

  1. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    88,460
    Likes Received:
    20,870
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Zero.
     
  2. Bluesguy

    Bluesguy Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    98,065
    Likes Received:
    13,466
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Trump is not charged with a crime because the OSC did not report any crimes committed to the AG. The AG and DAG and OLC reviewed and they clearly stated no evidence to charge a crime. THAT is reality.



    ROFL and once again no one was charged, not one American. Your baseless speculation is not evidence of anything, pure conjecture devoid of facts.

    And you think Sanders voters then voted for Trump? Rosenstein stated in his news conference no effect on the election outcome.

    And he violated a court order in doing so since it has never been proven.

    "But nobody apparently reminded Mueller that Judge Friedrich had ordered Mueller’s team to stop saying Concord and IRA worked for the Russian government.

    The government hasn’t alleged that, can’t prove it, and abandoned those allegations in open court. The government had only just barely escaped a criminal contempt citation because Mueller’s report and Barr’s press conference seemed to allege that the Russians (the Russians, as in the Russian government) were behind the troll farms. And that’s not true, according to the government’s own admissions."

    http://www.politicalforum.com/index...out-russian-companies.559533/#post-1070823636

    AND

    Judge dismisses DNC hacking lawsuit against Trump team, says claims 'entirely divorced from the fact
    http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/judge-dismisses-dnc-hacking-lawsuit-against-trump-team-says-claims-entirely-divorced-from-the-fact.559511/#post-1070822734
     
    Last edited: Jul 31, 2019
  3. grapeape

    grapeape Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2015
    Messages:
    6,402
    Likes Received:
    2,805
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No its not Ice. The government told them that the information that the defense thought was there, was not there, and the Judge (who saw the evidence) agreed.

    Again, you are making the giant leap that crowdstrike was the only source for anything since it wasn't the "full version". How does that prove that their was no other evidence anywhere other than what Crowdstrike found ? If you understood what the hack was, and how it worked you would know that the server was not needed to find out who performed the "hack".

    Its a simple fact that the "hack", and what Crowdstrike found on the server was nothing more than a key logger that captured passwords. Once they had the passwords anything they did on the server was an "expected behavior" that would not be logged. BUT, the data that they actually got, was not from that server, they used those "passwords" to get to the mail accounts of many people, and where the lions share of the data used to hurt the DNC came from was Leon Panetta's email, which was hosted at GMAIL. You have to understand some basic IT to understand that the server was not needed to determine who hacked it.

    But you're also leaving out the human intelligence that was gathered to also determine who did the hack. They traced the origins of the data that came to Wikileaks to the Russians. And that was also in the Mueller Report. The same Mueller report that you all claim proved Trump was clean, says that the Russians perpetrated the hack. So are you saying that the Mueller Report is junk ?
     
  4. icehole3

    icehole3 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 28, 2017
    Messages:
    6,023
    Likes Received:
    6,729
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Not trying to prove that, just telling you what Hoosier said was correct FBI didn't see the server and just took the word of Crowdstrike, Comey says so word for word himself if you took 1 minute to watch the video, just take 1 minute Grape. Im not saying your totally wrong just Hoosier was right in his comment. That's all I'm saying Grape take a minute and listen to Comey, not me.

     
  5. Jonsa

    Jonsa Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2011
    Messages:
    37,628
    Likes Received:
    7,912
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Then he lied to Barr, because its in his friggin report. Maybe reading it might help.


    And Barr et.al. are boot licking toadies for the cesspool that replaced it. go figger.
     
  6. Jonsa

    Jonsa Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2011
    Messages:
    37,628
    Likes Received:
    7,912
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That is simply not true. I guess the phrase "substantial evidence" that meets all legal criteria is "no evidence" in trumpland.
    That is trumpian reality.





    Not baseless, conjecture based on facts, not devoid, but I get how perhaps its too nuanced for some to digest.


    Rosenstein has no clue what the effect was, it was an opinion based on the republican party line, not on any actual data. OTOH, I get how rejecting the science of communication, not to mention fundamental aspects of human nature, is necessary to arrive at such a naive and stupid conclusion.

    HUH?

    Yes reminded, but no sanctions and no order to Meuller's team since she could find no bad faith, hence no sanctions or penalties. They have a point, its prejudicial to the defendant.

    Sorry, but I always thought that when issuing an indictment, the charges are articulated and the general theory of the crime is presented.
    They sure has hell didn't barely escape criminal contempt charges. You claim to know all about your legal system, yet you equate "sanction" with a "criminal" charge.

    Perhaps this will help. Title III, point 11.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Rules_of_Civil_Procedure
     
  7. Jonsa

    Jonsa Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2011
    Messages:
    37,628
    Likes Received:
    7,912
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Not true. They received a complete system image which enabled them to figure out where the attack came from. But I get how you don't have a clue how it all works, it makes it so much easier to swallow this fallacious argument - a kernel of truth with ignorant assumptions pile on top.
     
  8. Gary/Dubya

    Gary/Dubya Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2010
    Messages:
    2,607
    Likes Received:
    282
    Trophy Points:
    83
    What the hell is so hard about examining the facts?

    5 Eyes is intelligence sharing between the US, Canada, UK, Australia and New Zealand and it's been that way since WWII.

    Fact: "On May 6, Papadopoulos met Alexander Downer, the Australian High Commissioner to Britain in a London bar, and told him about the Clinton emails over drinks.[1]"(2016)

    Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crossfire_Hurricane_(FBI_investigation)

    Hint: Clinton emails = Intelligence agency involvement.

    Right-wingers can't seem to figure out that the complaint about the Clinton emails was some classified material could have been sent over an unsecured server. That doesn't stop tRump from asking the Russians to get the emails or praising wiki for releasing stolen material obtained by Russian hacking.

    The bottom line: The tRump campaign brought an investigation on itself by having a member announcing information about Clinton emails to someone connected to intelligence agencies, who reported it.

    The Steele Dossier argument is bogus, you don't need much more than an excuse to get a FISA court involved in national security concerns. Common sense should tell you, the FBI could probably get permission to wiretap someone nearly immediately, just by getting an unsubstantiated report that prompts them to do so. The DNC did not hire Steele, the DNC was asked if they wanted to fund the private investigator service Fusion, when the anti-tRump Republicans decided to stop funding after tRump was nominated. For a month or so, both groups were paying Fusion. Fusion hired Steele, who just happened to be a retired British equivalent of our CIA, who specialized in Russia.

    The Steele Dossier argument is so obviously bogus. The FBI is heavily involved in counter-intelligence and counter-terrorist activities. Getting FISA warrants from raw intelligence sources is more than likely done around the clock. All this FBI activity with FISA courts is done thru the DOJ, so what is Barr going to investigate, his filing cabinet? Discovering the raw intelligence used in a FISA warrant is faulty doesn't change things, that happens all the time. Fat chance getting your ass out of jail on that technicality.

    Now consider this: The Right-wing loves conspiracy theories so much, let's examine some possibilities. Let's assume someone behind the scenes is smart enough to set others up. With Fusion being in Republican hands, they could get the DNC to continue funding Fusion after they left and feed them misinformation. Steele would have been well known to the Russians and the Russians would have been signaled as soon as his activity was reported to them. The Russians could feed Steele misinformation, leak it after it gets reported to the FBI and start a big debate with the Right claiming the Steele Dossier is phony and the Left claiming it's real. The Left would think it's real and the Right would only need prompting to solidly decide it was phony, something Russia does with right-wing sites all the time. Russia could easily set Steele up and create a diversion to cover up the original reasons for the Russia investigation. For all we know, by now, the FBI and others in 5 Eyes could know this as a fact, eventually the sources of information get investigated and dots get connected. Finding the original source of information is important.
     
    Last edited: Jul 31, 2019
    Jonsa likes this.
  9. Jonsa

    Jonsa Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2011
    Messages:
    37,628
    Likes Received:
    7,912
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yep no matter how you portray it, the facts in evidence speak for themselves. Origin of the term is irrelevant to its contemporary meaning but keep trying to dismiss the fact you have swallowed a ton of partisan bullshit propaganda. Its not a right or left thing, its a human failing.
     
    Last edited: Jul 31, 2019
    Gary/Dubya likes this.
  10. ibobbrob

    ibobbrob Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2017
    Messages:
    12,744
    Likes Received:
    3,134
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Of course
     
  11. ibobbrob

    ibobbrob Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2017
    Messages:
    12,744
    Likes Received:
    3,134
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The swamp is now occupying the Whitehouse, so yes you are correct.
     
  12. Bluesguy

    Bluesguy Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    98,065
    Likes Received:
    13,466
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    It is absolutely true and stated in the report, they brought no claim of any crime to the AG to whom they were to confidentially report one if they found one.

    Ahh no you said

    That is baseless conjecture on your part, no evidence was presented to support it.

    ROFL so now the FBI and DOJ are lying.............you guys are too much.


    I was perfectly clear.


    And no evidence to support it it was the companies involved who filed the objection and complaint.

    You are making no sense. The companies involved were not indicted. Russian military officials were indicted.

    It's a criminal proceeding not a civil proceeding.
     
  13. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    88,460
    Likes Received:
    20,870
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Like Comey testified, “ultimately shared with us their forensics.” That would be Crowdstrike.
     
  14. Jonsa

    Jonsa Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2011
    Messages:
    37,628
    Likes Received:
    7,912
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yes, shared their "forensics" which includes a complete system dump, which is the first step in any forensic computer analysis. Sheeeesh.
     
  15. Jonsa

    Jonsa Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2011
    Messages:
    37,628
    Likes Received:
    7,912
    Trophy Points:
    113
    excuse me but what does, "substantial evidence to support the necessary elements of obstruction" mean to you?




    Actually there is substantive evidence presented in the report. I see you didn't read it.

    There is the acceptance of an offer for a foreign government to provide dirt. there was a meeting intended to accept that dirt. There was an evolution of lies offered by the trump campaign with regard to it.

    then there is the fact that five hours after the "russia if your listening", then there's trumps claim that he'll have plenty of dirt about hillary in the coming days, then there is the release of those emails three hours after the "I molest women and get away with it" tape.

    That may be circumstantial, but it sure as hell is evidence.



    No, neither of them made any assessment of the impact, because it is almost impossible to measure accurately. If you don't think that anything the russians did had any effect, then you dismiss the power of propaganda, the power of biased perception reinforcement, and the entire marketing industry.


    In your mind at least.



    Of course it was. As to evidence to support it, that is in the indictment. And guess what, the judge did not dismiss the case, nor did she impose any sanctions on the prosecution. go figger.



    Yeah, I mean facts make no sense.
    Along with 13 Russian nationals, three russian owned companies were also indicted. Concord Management, Concord Catering, and Internet Research Agency.


    mea culpa.

    https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/3162
     
  16. Jonsa

    Jonsa Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2011
    Messages:
    37,628
    Likes Received:
    7,912
    Trophy Points:
    113
    its beyond a swamp, its a cesspool.
     
  17. Xenamnes

    Xenamnes Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2015
    Messages:
    20,490
    Likes Received:
    5,869
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It is the district of columbia. It has never been anything else.
     
  18. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    88,460
    Likes Received:
    20,870
    Trophy Points:
    113
    False. You will only find that in defensive media with zero proof.
     
  19. Jonsa

    Jonsa Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2011
    Messages:
    37,628
    Likes Received:
    7,912
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Actually it was built on a swamp. And metaphorically I believe "cesspool" is more appropriate than swamp.
     
  20. Jonsa

    Jonsa Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2011
    Messages:
    37,628
    Likes Received:
    7,912
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I see you are being willfully ignorant about how computer forensics works. As for "only finding it in defensive media" that pretty much says it all about where the hell you are coming from. .

    But then again, it would blow your whole argument if you acknowledged this rather straightforward fact. Anyway, you can take comfort in the fact that the vast majority of the audience you are peddling it to also have no friggin' clue.
     
  21. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    88,460
    Likes Received:
    20,870
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I see you are ignorant of the facts.
     
  22. Jonsa

    Jonsa Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2011
    Messages:
    37,628
    Likes Received:
    7,912
    Trophy Points:
    113

    projection - the last resort.
     
  23. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    88,460
    Likes Received:
    20,870
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Zero proof = proof. Lib logic 101.
     
  24. Bluesguy

    Bluesguy Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    98,065
    Likes Received:
    13,466
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    What does "we did not make a determination that a crime was committed'? mean? What does the DOJ saying there was no crime mean to you?


    Enough or it and listened to the verbals and I see you did not read the findings of the AG, the DAG and the OLC.

    There was a agreement to a meeting which produced nothing. The only persons who got something from the Russians was the DNC and the Clinton campaign.

    And I see you still don't grasp the fact those were not the emails he was speaking of in his joking remark about maybe they could help the FBI recovery them after Clinton had tried to destroy them. Those emails are the property of the US Government and thus the American taxpayer and voter.

    Of what? You are confusing to different matters entirely and trying to desperately connect them as if the Russians were sitting there just waiting for Trump to go on national TV and get on with the secret plan to get Clinton's emails. If he were colluding and conspiring why would he sent them instructions with millions of people watching. It is a total Democrat canard.

    You baseless supposition does not trump or refute Rosenstein's OFFICIAL public finding. Go pound sand. That is the official record.


    "The government hasn’t alleged that, can’t prove it, and abandoned those allegations in open court. The government had only just barely escaped a criminal contempt citation because Mueller’s report and Barr’s press conference seemed to allege that the Russians (the Russians, as in the Russian government) were behind the troll farms. And that’s not true, according to the government’s own admissions."

    So will Judge Freidrich hold him in contempt? Will Concord and IRA file a compliant. Will the MSM report the facts the the Russians were behind it is still unsupported speculation?"

    More here....https://thefederalist.com/2019/07/31/robert-mueller-defy-court-order-stop-lying-russian-companies/
     
  25. grapeape

    grapeape Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2015
    Messages:
    6,402
    Likes Received:
    2,805
    Trophy Points:
    113

    hahaha. BS. They ALL investigated it
     

Share This Page