Mueller report finds no evidence that Trump campaign colluded with Russia - U.S. Justice Department

[Blue Muton]

On 3/25/2019 at 6:52 AM, ShortTimed said:

 

Some might say this was a politically motivated investigation so it was not actually a criminal investigation in the sense of Bernie Maddoff.

 

$50 million recovered? Seriously that would possibly not cover the expense of manhours for one day.

 

I feel a losing battle here because many seem to be defending this along their party lines which is a response based on emotion. Logic loses out to emotion.

 

I have no investment in this. The political theatre in our Southern neighbor is like a WWF event. Its great entertainment. I have no skin in the game.

 

Cheers

 

$50m a day? Where's your source for that, Breitbart?

[ShortTimed]

$50m a day? Where's your source for that, Breitbart?

Thanks for pointing out my typo.

I meant to say per hour.

[heybruce]

1 hour ago, lannarebirth said:

 

Even you'd have to admit that cable news outlets are hardly investigative journalists. The great bulk of their programming is roundtable punditry.

Yes, which is why I get my news by reading reputable sources, primarily The Economist and the BBC new app top stories, supplemented by occasional stories on the internet from trustworthy sites such as AP, UPI, Bloomberg, etc.  24 hour news channels are generally good only for quick updates on the days top stories, if that.

[heybruce]

1 hour ago, TopDeadSenter said:

Well the funny thing is, if you had spent the last 2 years watching the likes of Tim Pool, Mark Dice, Paul Joseph Watson and even Alex Jones, you would have been more accurately informed that if you watched CNN and MSNBC and other MSM outlets. The so called alt-right media called the Russian hoax correctly from the outset while the legacy media went on a wild goose chase with no evidence whatsoever all day all night. Really the likes of Alex Jones should have their social media accounts restored with grovelling apologies from the tech giants and CNN et al should be banned instead. After all, nobody wants double standards. If publishing fake news gets you banned from Facebook and Youtube then it's time to ban all legacy media.

 Another difference is that Jones apologized for his Sandy Hook comments. He was wrong. He admitted it. While Rachel Maddow and the rest just keep doubling down on their fake news even after it's proven to be fake. I just can't see how what she is doing is not a hate crime.

 The end to the Russia collusion hoax must be cemented with major media reforms. Legacy media must be forced to take responsibility for pushing fake news that suits the false narrative they try to push. This hoax has totally divided a nation, and it even had the potential to kick off a war with Russia. It can't get much more serious than that.

Alex Jones apologized for the Sandy Hook comment when he was having his *ss sued off in court for it.  He also provided such "quality journalism" as:

 

The government has "weather weapons".

 

Hillary Clinton was running a child sex ring out of a pizza parlor.

 

The 911 attacks were an inside job.   https://www.cnbc.com/2018/09/14/alex-jones-5-most-disturbing-ridiculous-conspiracy-theories.html

 

Also, Alex Jones and his ilk aren't news men.  They don't investigate, they read stories from other sources--some news, some fringe conspiracy sites--and present partial, slanted information combined with pure fiction to spin a story some simpletons want to hear. 

 

People need to learn the difference between a pundit, an entertainer (calling himself an entertainer was also part of Alex Jones' court defense) and a real journalist.

 

The Mueller investigation was brought on by Trump's own actions, and he more than anyone else has been dividing the nation.  Also, where did you get the idea that investigating Russian election interference and possible collusion "had the potential to kick off a war with Russia"?

 

BTW: You should try getting your news by reading reputable publications, not by watching or listening to entertainment programs.

[heybruce]

44 minutes ago, ShortTimed said:

 

The old healthcare system was much better & cheaper for the vast majority of Americans and employers and federal coffers.

 

ACA has cost billions and the only ones who benefit are those on subsidies.

 

I have had several friends in US say they thought they were voting for Nationalized Healthcare like us in Canada but what they got was nothing of the sort.

 

This is way off topic and no further comment from me.

Nationalized health care such as in Canada would have been a huge improvement, but Republicans, then and now, would never allow it.  Extending health insurance to the poor and those with pre-existing conditions was the best that could be managed.

[heybruce]

34 minutes ago, tlandtday said:

You really need to step back and get a better understanding of how agencies like the CIA work.  They are "clandestine".  The majority of the time very few elected politicians have any idea how they work.  The idea they are conforming to law and reporting like any other agency is silly. 

 

The response is so biased it should immediately raise red flags. " It was adopted by right-wing conspiracy theorists in the US who prefer paranoia to reason." LOL.  Ridiculous assertion with nothing to back it up.

 

Do you understand how wikipedia works?  It is not unbiased.  Any Joe can make contributions and it is constantly edited. It is open to abuse.  Wikipedia is a grade B or C source and is not accepted in legitimate academic articles.  People use it because it is easy and don't know any better.

The CIA reports to Senate and House intelligence committees.  These committees review its plans, actions, and approve its budgets.  That is accountability to elected officials.

 

I am not aware of the term deep state being applied to the US government until Republicans, long accustomed to initiating investigations, found themselves under investigation.  The fact that paranoid right-wingers use the term liberally does not convince me that there is a clandestine military/intelligence "mafia" secretly running the government, as is the case in other countries.

 

Wikipedia has imposed controls on who can submit and edit.  It is generally a useful source.  However if you can provide a credible source with an alternative definition of "deep state" that you think is better feel free to post it.

 

 

[TopDeadSenter]

15 minutes ago, heybruce said:

Alex Jones and his ilk aren't news men.  They don't investigate,

“We are not investigators" Jeff Zucker, President of CNN

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/25/business/media/mueller-report-media.html

[heybruce]

7 minutes ago, TopDeadSenter said:

“We are not investigators" Jeff Zucker, President of CNN

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/25/business/media/mueller-report-media.html

In context quote, from your source:

 

“We are not investigators,” CNN’s president, Jeff Zucker, said. “We are journalists, and our role is to report the facts as we know them, which is exactly what we did.” "

 

Are you trying to be the next Alex Jones?

 

[ShortTimed]

Nationalized health care such as in Canada would have been a huge improvement, but Republicans, then and now, would never allow it.  Extending health insurance to the poor and those with pre-existing conditions was the best that could be managed.

 IIRC, several democrat lawmakers who helped push through the ACA left office and took up very lucrative jobs in the healthcare industry.

 

It certainly gave the appearance they were being rewarded for their efforts to protect the very industries that a single-payer HC system would have made obsolete.

 

So the suggestion this is the fault of republicans may not be accurate.

 

Just like the findings of this Mueller investigation make apparent. Trump and the GOP are actually not the bogeymen the Left always paints them.

 

 

[lannarebirth]

33 minutes ago, heybruce said:

Nationalized health care such as in Canada would have been a huge improvement, but Republicans, then and now, would never allow it.  Extending health insurance to the poor and those with pre-existing conditions was the best that could be managed.

Democrats wouldn't allow it either, which left everyone wondering what is a Democrat if he isn't a Democrat anymore?

[heybruce]

15 minutes ago, ShortTimed said:

 IIRC, several democrat lawmakers who helped push through the ACA left office and took up very lucrative jobs in the healthcare industry.

 

It certainly gave the appearance they were being rewarded for their efforts to protect the very industries that a single-payer HC system would have made obsolete.

 

So the suggestion this is the fault of republicans may not be accurate.

 

Just like the findings of this Mueller investigation make apparent. Trump and the GOP are actually not the bogeymen the Left always paints them.

Democrats and Republicans take advantage of the cushy opportunities that arise from their time in office.  It's sleazy, but neither party has made a serious attempt to stop it.  Trump certainly hasn't.

 

"So the suggestion this is the fault of republicans may not be accurate."

 

You think so?  Find a single Republican lawmaker who has gone on record for anything resembling universal healthcare.

[ShortTimed]

Democrats and Republicans take advantage of the cushy opportunities that arise from their time in office.  It's sleazy, but neither party has made a serious attempt to stop it.  Trump certainly hasn't.  

"So the suggestion this is the fault of republicans may not be accurate."

 

You think so?  Find a single Republican lawmaker who has gone on record for anything resembling universal healthcare.

 

 

The point I made was that you can find plenty of Democrats who DID go on record saying they advocated Universal HC but their actions strongly suggested otherwise.

 

Sorry I had not made that clear.

 

Meanwhile we have gone seriously off-topic so I am done with this HC discussion.

 

[heybruce]

13 minutes ago, lannarebirth said:

Democrats wouldn't allow it either, which left everyone wondering what is a Democrat if he isn't a Democrat anymore?

Probably correct.  Bernie Sanders said, among many other things, words to the effect that we can't get good governance out of Washington until we clean up campaign finance.  Until then lawmakers from both parties are up for sell.

 

I liked a lot of Bernie's ideas, but after decades in Washington he has no accomplishments that I know of.  Good ideas are useless if you can't implement them.

[JimmyJ]

"MSNBC is like an apocalyptic cult that kept promising its flock the world would end on a specific date & now that it hasn't, they have to invent new theories to keep them hooked. Hence, Mueller found collusion but Barr is lying."

- Glenn Greenwald

 

[Which presupposes in this fantasy that Mueller will keep silent about Barr's lying after spending 2 years on the project and actually finding collusion.

 But hey, Putin may have a golden shower Mueller tape and that's how he's being silenced.

Yeah...that's right!

I think I"m onto something].
 

[thaibeachlovers]

21 hours ago, heybruce said:

Seriously?  Can you give an example of the US interfering in another country's election in the last 30 years? 

 

Are you one of those that think that since (you claim) it's normal to interfere in elections, we should just tolerate it when Russia does it to us and do nothing to prevent it?

If you don't know which country the US is currently interfering with in a massive way, you probably need to open your eyes, do some research.

I'm not going to say which country it is on here, so don't bother asking.

Are you seriously believing that all those expensive "intelligence" organisations in the US are not trying to prevent interference in US elections? They just don't seem very good at it.

[thaibeachlovers]

18 hours ago, alex8912 said:

For sure not from TVF. I rarely if ever open up links here. I find them annoying and usually biased (and some posters especially one extremely habitual one thinks he is all knowing on EVERY topic lol) so if it’s a topic I’m interested in I will just research it myself. I’m not even that old but I decided to not  join Facebook, Twitter or Instagram which even though I have been tempted I am better off for. I can appreciate your samples above but John McCain was called an old geezer many moons ago and the Russians certainly didn’t influence that at all. Many local Americans think Trump May have deserved a  peace prize as did many non Americans but most did not. 

I do find it interesting that soo many posters make fun of “Trumps core” and say they are uneducated, dirt poor trailer trash etc. but then like yourself think these same people all have lap tops and I phones etc to access FB, Insta and Twitter!!! How do these poor people afford such luxuries?? How do they know what a Nobel Peace Prize is??

If about 33% of voters in Massachusetts and about 41% of voters in Connecticut, for example, voted for Trump the Dems and others should really look closer to who they put forward as a candidate for Pres. These are two extremely wealthy and educated states. Now they are trying to push Elizabeth Warren ( what a joke) and a few others that Donald will destroy on the first couple debates. The USA needs a great president and if these witch hunts continue to be so in depth ( like this past one) no one great will ever run! Who wants to be dragged into court over something that may or most likely may not have happened to them when they were in high school? However giants like MSN and CNN think it’s perfectly cool to do this. Geez, give me and the rest of the sane world a break!

I patiently waited 22 months for this last fiasco to play out. I NEVER ONCE posted about it on TVF. Yet these EXTREMELY loud and often obnoxious handful of very vocal posters who never shut up for a day have been very silent these days. Especially one of them. Some others can’t even piece together just one humble pie sentence about this last event either. That is a HUGE problem with this forum. There are arguments for both sides. Why do so many get silenced here?

Excellent post. Indeed certain people seem to be absent from the conversation. I'm thinking of one that was hoping for lots of indictments as well, but that was as missing as any criminal activity by Trump.

I wonder what Mueller's team are doing now that the money spinner is over and they didn't even catch a big fish?

[ShortTimed]

I wonder what Mueller's team are doing now that the money spinner is over and they didn't even catch a big fish?

Rumor has it he is a big fan of karaoke.

[thaibeachlovers]

15 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Having ‘patiently waited 22 months’ don’t you want to see the report before you decide on the matter?

Why? He's been cleared of collusion and that's all that matters.

There's not going to be anything else either, or for sure it would have been leaked, IMO.

 

Nothing to fear, anyway.

 

[thaibeachlovers]

14 hours ago, Kelsall said:

NY Times:  Disappointed Fans of Mueller Rethink the Pedestal They Built for Him

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/25/us/politics/mueller-report-disappointment.html

I ain't going to open an account with the NYT, so that was a disappointing link.

Nevertheless Trump supporters can take heart to think of them having to suck on reality, after telling us for nearly 2 years that it was going to be the end of Trump. IMO the only thing the report has done is cement Trump's chances of a big win in 2020. I'm sure the Dems are bitterly disappointed that it came out so far ahead of the election. No doubt they wished it had been unresolved till after the election.

[thaibeachlovers]

13 hours ago, JHolmesJr said:

well....Im now looking forward to Uncle Lindsey stepping up with a red hot poker and 

going up the sphincters of all those who initiated this corrupt investigation.

 

Step right up James Comey!

Ah yes, the man that brought the whole farce about, with the collusion of Rosenstein. I hope he's in complete meltdown mode by now, seeing as his nefarious plan came to naught.

[wayned]

20 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Why? He's been cleared of collusion and that's all that matters.

There's not going to be anything else either, or for sure it would have been leaked, IMO.

 

Robert Mueller did not"clear him of obstruction. He said “while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.”  Barr and Rosenstein made the decision not to charge him: "After reviewing the Special Counsel's final report on these issues; consulting with Department officials, including the Office of Legal Counsel; and applying the principles of federal prosecution that guide our charging decisions, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and I have concluded that the evidence developed during the Special Counsel's investigation is not sufficient to establish that the President committed an obstruction-of-justice offense. the decision not to charge him: " Mueller's investigation is over, but nobody but Barr , Rosenstein and a select few have actually read Mueeler's report, only the 4 page summary from Bar.  Over the past 22 mo9nthsI don't remember a leak from the Mueeler investigation but he has handed out many other investigations to other US Attorney's offices.  I think that Trump is most worried about the SDNY and the NY Sates investigations.  I really thought that there would be more indictments and proof but am actually pleased that the President was cleared of collusion with Russia.

[thaibeachlovers]

12 hours ago, usviphotography said:

Total Russian expenditures were something like $200,000. And 25% of those ads ran during the primaries while another 25% ran after election day. So we are talking about around $100,000 that was spent during the actual general election, and those were a mix of pro and anti Trump ads and none of them were very skillfully done. $2.4 billion was spent on the 2016 Presidential race. You really think these Russians were trying to influence the election? By tossing a grain of sand on to the beach? The more credible explanation for the expenditure is that it was some kind of A/B marketing testing either for a private company for economic reasons or on behalf of the Russian Foreign Office as a way of surveying public opinion.  

Some are so invested in the "bad Trump" spiel that they will never believe that he won fair and square, as it had to be that he was aided and abetted by a foreign power, because apparently they think US voters are so stupid they will believe anything on social media.

[thaibeachlovers]

1 minute ago, wayned said:

Robert Mueller did not"clear him of obstruction. He said “while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.”  Barr and Rosenstein made the decision not to charge him: "After reviewing the Special Counsel's final report on these issues; consulting with Department officials, including the Office of Legal Counsel; and applying the principles of federal prosecution that guide our charging decisions, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and I have concluded that the evidence developed during the Special Counsel's investigation is not sufficient to establish that the President committed an obstruction-of-justice offense. the decision not to charge him: " Mueller's investigation is over, but nobody but Barr , Rosenstein and a select few have actually read Mueeler's report, only the 4 page summary from Bar.  Over the past 22 mo9nthsI don't remember a leak from the Mueeler investigation but he has handed out many other investigations to other US Attorney's offices.  I think that Trump is most worried about the SDNY and the NY Sates investigations.  I really thought that there would be more indictments and proof but am actually pleased that the President was cleared of collusion with Russia.

To use the phrase loved by certain posters on TVF,

but, but, but.

He ain't going to be prosecuted, he ain't going to be impeached, he ain't going to resign.

Sure seems like "cleared" to me.

[thaibeachlovers]

9 hours ago, heybruce said:

You have no way of knowing that.  Trump lost the popular vote by 3 million votes and managed an electoral college victory that could have easily gone the other way.  There is no way of proving how the election would have turned out if there had been no Russian interference, just as there is no way to determine how the election would have turned out if Comey had not violated FBI policy and verified the Hillary Clinton investigation then announced a re-opening of the investigation a week before the election.  Funny that Trumpies think the FBI and Comey are against them.

 

Ironic that Republicans, who have repeatedly investigated Hillary Clinton with no results, are now calling for another investigation of her without giving any reason why.

How many times do you have to be told that the US president is not elected by popular vote?

If Trump was elected by one electoral college vote he is still president, but he was elected by lots.

It was really wise of the founding fathers to foresee the possibility of populated states winning the country every time and making it not possible.

[Chomper Higgot]

Illiberals arguing that a report they have not seen supports their point of view, on the basis that another illiberal who was hand picked by Trump told them what they should believe is in the report. 

 

If there is nothing to hide, there is nothing to fear.

 

Show us the report. 

[FarangDoingHisThing69]

The hysterics of the deranged Trump hating communists never ceases to entertain.


Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect

[heybruce]

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

If you don't know which country the US is currently interfering with in a massive way, you probably need to open your eyes, do some research.

I'm not going to say which country it is on here, so don't bother asking.

Are you seriously believing that all those expensive "intelligence" organisations in the US are not trying to prevent interference in US elections? They just don't seem very good at it.

Ah yes, the old "Sure I know, but why should I tell you argument".  You astound us with your maturity.

 

The best protection against the kind of interference Russia practices is an educated, skeptical public that questions the source of all that is presented as news.  Unfortunately many Americans only question news that they don't want to believe.

[heybruce]

36 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Ah yes, the man that brought the whole farce about, with the collusion of Rosenstein. I hope he's in complete meltdown mode by now, seeing as his nefarious plan came to naught.

I find it amazing that Trumpies condemn James Comey.  He did more to make Trump President than Putin.

[heybruce]

34 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Some are so invested in the "bad Trump" spiel that they will never believe that he won fair and square, as it had to be that he was aided and abetted by a foreign power, because apparently they think US voters are so stupid they will believe anything on social media.

You just gave a good example of believing a source you agree with, while ignoring the fact that his post was convincingly discredited.

[heybruce]

25 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

How many times do you have to be told that the US president is not elected by popular vote?

If Trump was elected by one electoral college vote he is still president, but he was elected by lots.

It was really wise of the founding fathers to foresee the possibility of populated states winning the country every time and making it not possible.

I was disputing the claim that Russia had nothing to do with Trump winning the election, but of course facts and context don't matter to you.

 

You think it was wise of the Founding Fathers to develop an electoral system that pleased the slave states by giving them extra weight in Presidential elections?