Vindman just lied under oath…

Maybe Bonespurs and AG Porky Pig should start investigations on all of the Dem candidates.

 

If they're involved in corruption like Plugs, do they get a pass because they're running for office? Hillary and Trump didn't.

 

do you deny calling the AG fat? No straw man here, just you, your writing, and wondering why you think it's ok to fat shame.. Simple stuff here.

 

No need. They're all much like yourself where schoolyard taunts seem an acceptable substitute for debate rather than discussing the genuine issues facing the country.

 

Read any Trump tweets lately? He specializes in "schoolyard taunts."

 

And Trump serves as your mentor, the person you want to be, does he?

 

Oh shut it, Fred. You've read my posts before and know damned well that I use sources and explain my reasoning. Boohoo. I called them a couple of names, though.

 

Do you feel sad when the president uses personal insults?

 

Me? Not at all. I think he's a criminal who belongs in jail. Lock him up!

 

Never noticed that.

 

No, i think it's foolish and. like many others, would like him to stop. He often used them as a political strategy, which worked, but doesn't need them as much now.

 

Why? I trust Mr. Mueller would have stated that the investigation found evidence that the campaign "coordinated or conspired with the Russian government in its election-interference activities".

But he didn't. When and if he does, I'll read it.
I have a life and take a keen interest in things that actually happened, and less of an interest in things that did not.

Obstruction of justice charges, which are even harder to prove, weren't filed either, and I have no more reason to believe that William Barr, who declined to find them, is in the pocket of Trump than I do to believe that Trump is in the pocket of Putin. That latter nonsense is the predicate driving all this insanity.

Of course, if someone produces evidence that Trump has photos of Barr being urinated on by prostitutes, like Putin has of Trump, I'll reconsider. But I can't assume that everyone I disagree with is corrupt.

 

I believe Mueller's report says there was insufficient evidence (at the time of the report) to rise to the level of "beyond a reasonable doubt" regarding a conspiracy between the Trump campaign and the Russians. Stay tuned for more. It now appears that the President wishes to reopen the investigation, which I assume means he's changed his mind regarding the Mueller Report's conclusions.

 

No. It would never have claimed it had evidence "B.R.D.," and I wouldn't have expected it to do so. At most it would have said good cause, or probable cause to believe .... blah blah. Trump would still have been entitled to present legal, constitutional, and factual defenses.

The report says the special counsel “did not find that the Trump campaign, or anyone associated with it, conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in these efforts, despite multiple efforts from Russian-affiliated individuals to assist the Trump campaign.”

Of course that doesn't mean that no evidence exists, but I'm not convicting anyone in what might be.

Another thing getting lost is that even if Mueller had found the things Trump's detractors assume, based on media hysteria and the ridiculous Steele dossier, Mueller is not a judge or a jury. We don't convict people on the basis of untried accusations, or ar least we didn't use to do so.

I'm happy to review any new information, of which I see none here.

 

No reason to think that.

Mueller didn't conduct a complete investigation. There is still the matter of the Steele Dossier, the DNC, the FBI, the CIA, Hillary Clinton, etc. ,

 

I can't edit this post but admit that I was wrong in that the report did reference the beyond a reasonable doubt standard, but the fact they did not find that they had evidence likely to satisfy that burden leaves me satisfied that it isn't there. Or at least I am more inclined to think that it isn't than that it is.

If not even the prosecution thinks it has a winnable case, what is the likelihood that it does?

 

The report says (page 173, Volume 1): " In sum, the investigation established multiple links between Trump's Campaign officials and individuals tied to the Russian government. Those links included Russian offers of assistance to the Campaign. In some instances, the Campaign was receptive to the offer, while in other instances the Campaign officials shied away. Ultimately, the investigation did not establish that the Campaign coordinated or conspired with the Russian government in its election-interference activities." [Note: That was written BEFORE the Roger Stone trial and the arrest of the Giuliani "associates" arrests.]
Now, as of the time of the report's release, I will agree with you that Mueller did not have sufficient evidence at the time of the report to justify a conspiracy charge on anyone. But, from separate information (I believe it was a Rosenstein speech) we know that the charging "standard" for DoJ is "evidence of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt." This is why they get a 90%+ rate of success at trial. Based on that, and the above citation from the report itself, I would conclude that it doesn't necessarily state that there was "no evidence," but insufficient evidence to reach an indictment standard.
So...take it a step further and ask yourself if the report does not recommend an indictment on the conspiracy charge and recognizes the limitations regarding an obstruction of justice charge (Volume II), then why was Trump trying to reopen the investigation?

 

The Steele dossier was hardly mentioned in the Mueller report and apparently used only to corroborate other FBI information in order to obtain a FISA warrant on Carter Page. The Mueller report concluded that the Russians were responsible for the DNC and Clinton Campaign e-mail hacking, just as the intelligence agencies concluded. So, why is Trump essentially reopening the Mueller investigation?
I would suggest that it was complete up until the time of its publication. With the Stone trial and convictions, plus the arrests of Rudy's "associates," there may be justification to reopen the investigation, but why would Trump want that?

 

Yes, I agree with most of that, and I tried to edit my post, though I don't understand the question at the end of your post.

All federal prosecutors think they have evidence B.R.D. when they indict. And usually they do. It's easy to show it in guns and drug cases. It's trickier in fraud and corruption cases. That's why that 90% success rate isn't 100%.

But if they don't even indict at all, it's time to move on.

 

Because for most being fat is correctable.The all inclusive bullshit where we tell fat people there beautiful is ridiculous. You’re not beautiful you’re a fat ass.

 

No, you.

Seriously, what?

 

Exactly. How can there be an investigation into the 2016 election when only one party is being investigated? That makes no sense whatsoever.

Because there are too many loose ends.

Because it's very possible Stone was framed, that there were set ups, as happened with Flynn, Page, Papadopolous, etc. and that civil rights were systematically ignored.

 

Unless there is new evidence. Off-hand, I can think of four open issues: 1) The Stone sentencing; 2) The Rudy investigation, along with his arrested "associates," 3) The Horowitz report on the FISA warrant on Page; and 4) the Durham Report on the origin of the Comey/Mueller investigation. My question is that a prime motivation of Rudy & Friends-in-Ukraine was to reopen the origin of the Russian hacking of the DNC and Clinton Campaign. Since Trump had been, according to his supporters, essentially cleared by Mueller of "conspiracy" with the Russians over that, why reopen the case? I can think of only one reason, to clear Putin and the Russians of the hacking and shift the blame to the Ukrainians. Why?

 

Just for the record obesity is a genuine issue facing the country. The desire to beautify obesity is only making it worse!

 

Why? If you mean "What is the justification?" Perhaps they want to have an answer in 2020 to those who say that Mueller insinuated that there was collusion, though proof was lacking. A cloud will be hanging over him until Mueller says under oath in prime time that "Trump is not only not guilty, he is factually innocent."

That doesn't make sense, though, as even Trump admitted that "Russia" whatever, that means precisely, engaged in meddling.

My best guess is that Trump is dug in on this notion of Ukrainian corruption as a defense to that "do us a favor" phone call, and he won't rest until he comes up with something to justify it.

I don't think he is trying to clear "Russia."