Mueller report: It doesn't tell us how it knows some things.

I'm not sure a disk image from Crowdstrike is as reliable as you apparently think.

 

It was obviously enough for Mueller to trace the hack back to the Russians.

 

The term "grand jury testimony" doesn't appear on Google. Juries listen and make judgements. I don't understand how a jury testifies.

 

You testify in front of a grand jury. That's where the term comes from.

 

That's exactly why I don't think it is reliable:

 

Did you read the Russian indictments?
Or are you starting a conspiracy theory?

 

Was how he knows redacted? Was it included in supporting documents? Or is it poorly supported?

 

Er, the footnotes refers to the source of the supporting evidence. the underlying evidence has not been released and so far Trump's AG is refusing to release it or provide access to it by qualified congressional personnel.

AND Trump's AG while under oath said that he accepted the summary document as having the evidence to support its claims. Remember when he admitted that he hadn't seen or reviewed the supporting evidence?

Good enough for the Attorney General, but not it seems good enough for trumpettes.

 

Oh sure, but I'm saying that there were no footnotes for this section of the report.

Don't you mean the unredacted report?

...and? His summary matched the conclusion of the Mueller report, so what the hell is the issue?

Not sure what you mean. A Google search for, "Barr supporting evidence" returns no results which include the term "supporting evidence."

Trumpettes?

 

Not redacted, because there is no black highlighting in this section.

 

Yes, so given that multiple people testified, wouldn't there be multiple grand jury testimonies?

 

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...ows-some-things.554756/page-4#post-1070532687

 

Where does this mention deleting a line in Trump Jrs. statement?

 

Which media report?

 

I'm confused. Our back and forth discussion began when you posted this:

That was in response to my OP, in which I questioned how Mueller could've known about Trump deleting a line from Trump Jrs. statement. Do you still think that your above post answers how Mueller knew?

 

What do you mean "traced" them? You mean found their location?

 

A psychological look at what has been going on.

 

The above is directly from the Mueller report.

 

Spying on a US president occurred early in his campaign and continued.

 

A couple of Mueller's omissions; there is nothing in the entire report on verifying the dossier. Steele claims at least two sources he describes as then active and quite high ranking members of the Russian government, but he didn't investigate whether what they provided had been disinformation. This would have been a form of meddling in the election (providing false information to support opposition research against a candidate), but Mueller only identifies two forms of Russian meddling; by social media and hacking the DNC. The other issue is this Mifsud entrapment, which seems bigger than reported. Halper's involvement with Papadopoulos and Carter Page, coupled with Mifsud's alleged indication Russian agents had thousands of hacked Hillary emails is acknowledged as the trigger to the FBI investigation of Trump, but Mifsud's description as a Russian intelligence asset is completely unsubstantiated, Mueller should have some evidence of this claim.

 

Sure, but they are not included in the report. Barr, for some reason, is resisting asking the courts for them.

 

Go read indictments for yourself. I posted them.
But short answer. Yes.

 

There is mention in the report about Hope Hicks testimony. That's where it is.

 

which section?

No, the thousands of pages of testimony and documents that were collected in the course of the investigation and form the basis for the report itself.

Nope, not even close to characterizing it. There is more than sufficient evidence to indict Trump for obstruction of justice.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/barr-admits-he-did-not-read-muellers-underlying-evidence

To differentiate trump supporters from center right conservatives who would never vote for trump again.

 

I'm skeptical legislators are going to find something in the millions of pages Mueller's investigators generated from questioning suspects, following leads and reviewing records, that shows the collusion Mueller didn't properly consider. Just take into account Mueller's experience, he is a prosecutor. No doubt plenty of those legislators think they can find that mythical smoking gun, but few of them have the experience Mueller has with criminal prosecutions.