Mueller says he could not charge Trump as Congress weighs impeachment

[heybruce]

27 minutes ago, riclag said:

Such a smooth transition of power, Aye !

"Still, some Democratic members of Congress and some former Obama administration officials -- privately at least -- have criticized Obama for not doing enough to thwart the Russian election interference campaign"

https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/02/politics/fact-check-trump-claims-obama-did-nothing-russia/index.html

 

The still means even though,Even though Obama has never admitted publicly , he could of warned the Transition team,but that would of given away the scheme,that Mr Barr is looking into . 

Some Democrats are criticizing Obama's actions in hindsight.  So what?

 

What evidence do you have that Obama didn't warn the transition team?  What scheme do you think he was protecting?  Why do you think Trump would have accepted such a warning?  He was, and may still be, in full blown denial about Russian interference.

[heybruce]

12 minutes ago, elmrfudd said:

well, here is a vacuous assumption without a shred of credibility:

 

"while candidate Trump was running a "let's be friends with Russia" campaign and lied about not having business interests in Russia.  That alone is enough to justify the investigation."

 

it takes more than an opinion or assumption to justify an investigation, unless you hate the person you want investigated of course.

What part of my statement do you think lacks credibility?  The "let's be friends with Russia"?  The business interests, negotiations on a Moscow real estate deal during the campaign?  Trump denying he had any interests in Russia?  Of the fact that such a blatant conflict of interest warrants investigation?

 

I agree it should take more than an opinion or assumption to justify an investigation, but Trump directed Barr to investigate the origins of Mueller's investigation anyway.

[elmrfudd]

47 minutes ago, heybruce said:

Do you want to rerun the election without Russian interference to see what changes?  That is the only way to "prove" how much or how little impact Russia had.

 

According to Facebook, Russia, through the IRA, made 80,000 posts that reached 29 million people.  I can't prove that this changed the election outcome, and you can't prove it didn't. 

 

I maintain that this kind of Russian interference needs to be prevented in future elections.  What do you think?

I do know that you want to void the last election, but that will not happen. But  at least you have

zero proof it actually made a difference.

 

I maintain the US govt has been lazy, incompetent and feckless when it comes to all cyber issues, as well

as upgrading their own systems across all agencies.

 

But I do have enough common sense to know election meddling has been going on for several decades

in many forms, but until it is the candidate the leftists hate more than any before, it is now become

a cataclysmic event.

Edited June 7, 2019 by elmrfudd

[elmrfudd]

17 minutes ago, heybruce said:

33 minutes ago, elmrfudd said:

well, here is a vacuous assumption without a shred of credibility:

 

"while candidate Trump was running a "let's be friends with Russia" campaign and lied about not having business interests in Russia.  That alone is enough to justify the investigation."

 

it takes more than an opinion or assumption to justify an investigation, unless you hate the person you want investigated of course.

What part of my statement do you think lacks credibility?  The "let's be friends with Russia"?  The business interests, negotiations on a Moscow real estate deal during the campaign?  Trump denying he had any interests in Russia?  Of the fact that such a blatant conflict of interest warrants investigation?

 

I agree it should take more than an opinion or assumption to justify an investigation, but Trump directed Barr to investigate the origins of Mueller's investigation anyway.

your opinion of the justification for an investigation lacks credibility, as do the results of the investigation 

[elmrfudd]

34 minutes ago, heybruce said:

1 hour ago, elmrfudd said:

i did give an answer, but it got deleted....

 

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/may/12/george-papadopoulos-says-mueller-report-shows-i-wa/

Papadopoulos claims he did nothing wrong and the Mueller report completely vindicates him.  What a surprise.  I couldn't make out what part of the report it is that he thinks vindicates him.

I am sure you don't

 

 

 

"None of his Mifsud contacts amid London’s nexus of diplomats and think tanks would have mattered, except for one. A month later, Papadopoulos sipped a glass of wine with Alexander Downer, the Australian ambassador to the United Kingdom, who was accompanied by his aide, Erika Thompson.

She arranged for the increasingly in-demand Papadopoulos to meet her boss at a wine bar on May 10, 2016. It would become the most momentous chitchat in Trump-Russia history. Papadopoulos said the former Australian foreign minister spent most of the encounter bashing candidate Trump.

Afterward, Mr. Downer filed an intelligence report that said, according to the Mueller report: “Papadopoulos suggested to a representative of a foreign government that the Trump Campaign had received indications from the Russian government that it could assist the Campaign through the anonymous release of information that would be damaging to Hillary Clinton.”

[riclag]

39 minutes ago, heybruce said:

Do you want to rerun the election without Russian interference to see what changes?  That is the only way to "prove" how much or how little impact Russia had.

 

According to Facebook, Russia, through the IRA, made 80,000 posts that reached 29 million people.  I can't prove that this changed the election outcome, and you can't prove it didn't. 

 

I maintain that this kind of Russian interference needs to be prevented in future elections.  What do you think?

 

 

And obama knowing this, said  with a stiff upper lip so innocently , cut it out Vlad

[elmrfudd]

41 minutes ago, heybruce said:

Some Democrats are criticizing Obama's actions in hindsight.  So what?

 

What evidence do you have that Obama didn't warn the transition team?  What scheme do you think he was protecting?  Why do you think Trump would have accepted such a warning?  He was, and may still be, in full blown denial about Russian interference.

wow, these kind of statements you pounce on when it suits your narrative, but when it is you doing it, no problem

[riclag]

46 minutes ago, heybruce said:

Some Democrats are criticizing Obama's actions in hindsight.  So what?

 

What evidence do you have that Obama didn't warn the transition team?  What scheme do you think he was protecting?  Why do you think Trump would have accepted such a warning?  He was, and may still be, in full blown denial about Russian interference.

Like I said Mr. Barr is looking into all of this "by the book" circumstances

[heybruce]

48 minutes ago, elmrfudd said:

I do know that you want to void the last election, but that will not happen. But  at least you have

zero proof it actually made a difference.

 

I maintain the US govt has been lazy, incompetent and feckless when it comes to all cyber issues, as well

as upgrading their own systems across all agencies.

 

But I do have enough common sense to know election meddling has been going on for several decades

in many forms, but until it is the candidate the leftists hate more than any before, it is now become

a cataclysmic event.

"But I do have enough common sense to know election meddling has been going on for several decades

in many forms,"

 

Fine.  Since you know this, I assume you have proof.  What is your proof of election meddling by a hostile foreign power before 2016 that reached the same level as what happened in 2016.

 

Is the US government being any less lazy and feckless regarding cyber issues since Trump has been President?

[heybruce]

49 minutes ago, elmrfudd said:

your opinion of the justification for an investigation lacks credibility, as do the results of the investigation 

My rational for the investigation was clearly stated, unlike the investigation Trump and his fans so eagerly insist upon.

 

Why do the results of the Mueller investigation lack credibility?  Do you have greater legal and law enforcement expertise than Mueller?

[heybruce]

49 minutes ago, elmrfudd said:

I am sure you don't

 

 

 

"None of his Mifsud contacts amid London’s nexus of diplomats and think tanks would have mattered, except for one. A month later, Papadopoulos sipped a glass of wine with Alexander Downer, the Australian ambassador to the United Kingdom, who was accompanied by his aide, Erika Thompson.

She arranged for the increasingly in-demand Papadopoulos to meet her boss at a wine bar on May 10, 2016. It would become the most momentous chitchat in Trump-Russia history. Papadopoulos said the former Australian foreign minister spent most of the encounter bashing candidate Trump.

Afterward, Mr. Downer filed an intelligence report that said, according to the Mueller report: “Papadopoulos suggested to a representative of a foreign government that the Trump Campaign had received indications from the Russian government that it could assist the Campaign through the anonymous release of information that would be damaging to Hillary Clinton.”

 

Who's recollection and interpretation of events are these?

 

Keep in mind that the Washington Times is hardly the gold standard of journalism.  It was founded by Sun Myung Moon (of the Moonies fame), is still owned by his church, and is known for conservative opinions, Islamophobia, conspiracy theories, etc.

 

 

[heybruce]

39 minutes ago, riclag said:

And obama knowing this, said  with a stiff upper lip so innocently , cut it out Vlad

And evidence indicates that Vlad, once confronted by Obama, did reduce the interference.  However now that Vlad's candidate won, we can expect much more of that kind of interference.

[heybruce]

40 minutes ago, elmrfudd said:

wow, these kind of statements you pounce on when it suits your narrative, but when it is you doing it, no problem

Wow, what a non-answer.

[elmrfudd]

18 minutes ago, heybruce said:

"But I do have enough common sense to know election meddling has been going on for several decades

in many forms,"

 

Fine.  Since you know this, I assume you have proof.  What is your proof of election meddling by a hostile foreign power before 2016 that reached the same level as what happened in 2016.

 

Is the US government being any less lazy and feckless regarding cyber issues since Trump has been President?

ok, here we go bruce:

 

 

just a few of many:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_electoral_intervention#1984_election_(U.S.S.R.)

 

1996 election (China)
Main article: 1996 United States campaign finance controversy
In February 1997, officials from the Federal Bureau of Investigation announced they had uncovered evidence that the government of China had sought to make illegal foreign contributions to the Democratic National Committee.[71] Both the presidential administration and the Chinese government denied any wrongdoing.[72][73]

 

1984 election (U.S.S.R.)
When Ronald Reagan was running for reelection as president, the Soviet Union very much opposed his candidacy and took active measures against it.[74] Soviet intelligence

 

reported1960 election (U.S.S.R.)
Adlai Stevenson II had been the Democratic presidential nominee in 1952 and 1956, and the Soviets offered him propaganda support if he would run again for president in 1960, but Stevenson declined to run again.[79] Instead, Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev backed John F. Kennedy in that very close election, against Richard Nixon with whom Krushchev had clashed in the 1959 Kitchen Debate.[80] On July 1, 1960 a Soviet MiG-19 shot down an American RB-47H reconnaissance aircraft in the international airspace over the Barents Sea with four of the crew being killed and two captured by the Soviets: John R. McKone and Freeman B. Olmstead.[81] The Soviets held on to those two prisoners, in order to avoid giving Nixon (who was the incumbent Vice-President of the United States) an opportunity to boast about his ability to work with the Soviets, and the two Air Force officers were released just days after Kennedy's inauguration, on January 25, 1961. Krushchev later bragged that Kennedy acknowledged the Soviet help: "You're right. I admit you played a role in the election and cast your vote for me...."[80] Former Soviet ambassador to the United States Oleg Troyanovsky confirms Kennedy's acknowledgment, but also quotes Kennedy doubting whether the Soviet support made a difference: "I don't think it affected the elections in any way."[80][82]ly attempted to infiltrate both the Republican National Committee and Democratic National Committee.[74]

 

 

 

 

 

so to try and spout garbage about why the meddling in the last election was the worst ever, you have nothing but a silly bias to base this on.

He won, he will be the president regardless of your emotional irrational outrage. and the more the left tries to undermine this, the more they

will ensure another 4 years.

 

 

 

"Is the US government being any less lazy and feckless regarding cyber issues since Trump has been President?"

 

I do not know, if it was me I would be doing things no one would ever know to try and trap the people doing it.

not to advertise it, or tout it. but we know how bureaucracies are, and the results they rarely achieve.

 

Edited June 7, 2019 by elmrfudd

[heybruce]

36 minutes ago, riclag said:

Like I said Mr. Barr is looking into all of this "by the book" circumstances

Even though there is no evidence that the investigation was improperly initiated and conducted.

[elmrfudd]

3 minutes ago, heybruce said:

57 minutes ago, elmrfudd said:

I am sure you don't

 

 

 

"None of his Mifsud contacts amid London’s nexus of diplomats and think tanks would have mattered, except for one. A month later, Papadopoulos sipped a glass of wine with Alexander Downer, the Australian ambassador to the United Kingdom, who was accompanied by his aide, Erika Thompson.

She arranged for the increasingly in-demand Papadopoulos to meet her boss at a wine bar on May 10, 2016. It would become the most momentous chitchat in Trump-Russia history. Papadopoulos said the former Australian foreign minister spent most of the encounter bashing candidate Trump.

Afterward, Mr. Downer filed an intelligence report that said, according to the Mueller report: “Papadopoulos suggested to a representative of a foreign government that the Trump Campaign had received indications from the Russian government that it could assist the Campaign through the anonymous release of information that would be damaging to Hillary Clinton.”

 

Who's recollection and interpretation of events are these?

 

Keep in mind that the Washington Times is hardly the gold standard of journalism.  It was founded by Sun Myung Moon (of the Moonies fame), is still owned by his church, and is known for conservative opinions, Islamophobia, conspiracy theories, etc.

 

right, so when it suits you, you believe an article, when it suits you, you don't.

I guess as more gets uncovered, you can keep up the facade of a legitimate investigation, until

enough is revealed. And you will still be denying it

[heybruce]

2 minutes ago, elmrfudd said:

ok, here we go bruce:

 

 

just a few of many:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_electoral_intervention#1984_election_(U.S.S.R.)

 

1996 election (China)
Main article: 1996 United States campaign finance controversy
In February 1997, officials from the Federal Bureau of Investigation announced they had uncovered evidence that the government of China had sought to make illegal foreign contributions to the Democratic National Committee.[71] Both the presidential administration and the Chinese government denied any wrongdoing.[72][73]

 

1984 election (U.S.S.R.)
When Ronald Reagan was running for reelection as president, the Soviet Union very much opposed his candidacy and took active measures against it.[74] Soviet intelligence

 

reported1960 election (U.S.S.R.)
Adlai Stevenson II had been the Democratic presidential nominee in 1952 and 1956, and the Soviets offered him propaganda support if he would run again for president in 1960, but Stevenson declined to run again.[79] Instead, Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev backed John F. Kennedy in that very close election, against Richard Nixon with whom Krushchev had clashed in the 1959 Kitchen Debate.[80] On July 1, 1960 a Soviet MiG-19 shot down an American RB-47H reconnaissance aircraft in the international airspace over the Barents Sea with four of the crew being killed and two captured by the Soviets: John R. McKone and Freeman B. Olmstead.[81] The Soviets held on to those two prisoners, in order to avoid giving Nixon (who was the incumbent Vice-President of the United States) an opportunity to boast about his ability to work with the Soviets, and the two Air Force officers were released just days after Kennedy's inauguration, on January 25, 1961. Krushchev later bragged that Kennedy acknowledged the Soviet help: "You're right. I admit you played a role in the election and cast your vote for me...."[80] Former Soviet ambassador to the United States Oleg Troyanovsky confirms Kennedy's acknowledgment, but also quotes Kennedy doubting whether the Soviet support made a difference: "I don't think it affected the elections in any way."[80][82]ly attempted to infiltrate both the Republican National Committee and Democratic National Committee.[74]

 

 

 

 

 

so to try and spout garbage about why the meddling in the last election was the worst ever, you have nothing but a silly bias to base this on.

He won, he will be the president regardless of your emotional irrational outrage. and the more the left tries to undermine this, the more they

will ensure another 4 years.

 

Nice research on attempted meddling.  Did misinformation from these attempts reach 29 million Americans?

[elmrfudd]

13 minutes ago, heybruce said:

1 hour ago, elmrfudd said:

your opinion of the justification for an investigation lacks credibility, as do the results of the investigation 

My rational for the investigation was clearly stated, unlike the investigation Trump and his fans so eagerly insist upon.

 

Why do the results of the Mueller investigation lack credibility?  Do you have greater legal and law enforcement expertise than Mueller?

the results show there was no validity to the investigation in the first place

[heybruce]

1 minute ago, elmrfudd said:

right, so when it suits you, you believe an article, when it suits you, you don't.

I guess as more gets uncovered, you can keep up the facade of a legitimate investigation, until

enough is revealed. And you will still be denying it

I get my news from sources with a long history of objective journalism.  The Washington Times, founded by a cult leader with a political agenda, doesn't meet that standard.

[elmrfudd]

5 minutes ago, heybruce said:

46 minutes ago, riclag said:

And obama knowing this, said  with a stiff upper lip so innocently , cut it out Vlad

And evidence indicates that Vlad, once confronted by Obama, did reduce the interference.  However now that Vlad's candidate won, we can expect much more of that kind of interference.

what evidence?

what we can expect is the leftists will hang on to this narrative no matter what, as you have clearly shown.

[riclag]

7 minutes ago, heybruce said:

And evidence indicates that Vlad, once confronted by Obama, did reduce the interference.  However now that Vlad's candidate won, we can expect much more of that kind of interference.

80,000 facebook discordian ads is hardly a reduction ,in fact its the lefts gold standard for their narrative  of falsely excusing Mr. TRump while it was all on obama's watch

Edited June 7, 2019 by riclag

[heybruce]

1 minute ago, elmrfudd said:

the results show there was no validity to the investigation in the first place

No validity in spite of the documented interference, indictments, convictions, guilty pleas, etc?

[Tug]

Hey Bruce do you enjoy feeding trolls?lol they have the dts bad lol the trump delusion syndrome lol 

[heybruce]

3 minutes ago, elmrfudd said:

what evidence?

what we can expect is the leftists will hang on to this narrative no matter what, as you have clearly shown.

Obama warned Putin in September 2016.  What new forms of Russian hacking were documented between then and the election?

 

After the election, when Obama could no longer be accused of interfering himself, he took more decisive action:

 

" After Election Day, Obama ordered the U.S. intelligence community to issue a public report about the Russian scheme. Once it had — and concluded Russia's attack was aimed at helping Trump and hurting Clinton — the United States imposed a slate of punitive measures against Moscow. In addition to imposing new sanctions, Washington also expelled a number of Russian diplomats and closed two Russian diplomatic compounds in Maryland and New York. "   https://www.npr.org/2018/02/21/587614043/fact-check-why-didnt-obama-stop-russia-s-election-interference-in-2016

 

It was Flynn's phone call to the Russian ambassador on these measures that got him into trouble.

[heybruce]

8 minutes ago, riclag said:

80,000 facebook discordian ads is hardly a reduction ,in fact its the lefts gold standard for their narrative  of falsely excusing Mr. TRump while it was all on obama's watch

You really need to proof-read before you post.  I think you are saying the 80,000 Facebook posts were initiated between the time of Obama's warning to Putin in September 2016 and the election.  No, they were initiated earlier.

[attrayant]

6 minutes ago, elmrfudd said:

what we can expect is the leftists will hang on to this narrative no matter what, as you have clearly shown.

 

 

What would you do without labels to stick on everybody?

 

Conservative (not "leftist") Max Boot: Here are seven reasons Trump should be impeached

 

And there are plenty more traditional conservative republicans where Max came from.  Stop pretending you aren't aware of these issues.

[heybruce]

4 minutes ago, Tug said:

Hey Bruce do you enjoy feeding trolls?lol they have the dts bad lol the trump delusion syndrome lol 

As the Fox News pundits have made very clear, when simple minds hear the same lies repeated many times, they believe them. 

[elmrfudd]

12 minutes ago, heybruce said:

16 minutes ago, elmrfudd said:

ok, here we go bruce:

 

 

just a few of many:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_electoral_intervention#1984_election_(U.S.S.R.)

 

1996 election (China)
Main article: 1996 United States campaign finance controversy
In February 1997, officials from the Federal Bureau of Investigation announced they had uncovered evidence that the government of China had sought to make illegal foreign contributions to the Democratic National Committee.[71] Both the presidential administration and the Chinese government denied any wrongdoing.[72][73]

 

1984 election (U.S.S.R.)
When Ronald Reagan was running for reelection as president, the Soviet Union very much opposed his candidacy and took active measures against it.[74] Soviet intelligence

 

reported1960 election (U.S.S.R.)
Adlai Stevenson II had been the Democratic presidential nominee in 1952 and 1956, and the Soviets offered him propaganda support if he would run again for president in 1960, but Stevenson declined to run again.[79] Instead, Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev backed John F. Kennedy in that very close election, against Richard Nixon with whom Krushchev had clashed in the 1959 Kitchen Debate.[80] On July 1, 1960 a Soviet MiG-19 shot down an American RB-47H reconnaissance aircraft in the international airspace over the Barents Sea with four of the crew being killed and two captured by the Soviets: John R. McKone and Freeman B. Olmstead.[81] The Soviets held on to those two prisoners, in order to avoid giving Nixon (who was the incumbent Vice-President of the United States) an opportunity to boast about his ability to work with the Soviets, and the two Air Force officers were released just days after Kennedy's inauguration, on January 25, 1961. Krushchev later bragged that Kennedy acknowledged the Soviet help: "You're right. I admit you played a role in the election and cast your vote for me...."[80] Former Soviet ambassador to the United States Oleg Troyanovsky confirms Kennedy's acknowledgment, but also quotes Kennedy doubting whether the Soviet support made a difference: "I don't think it affected the elections in any way."[80][82]ly attempted to infiltrate both the Republican National Committee and Democratic National Committee.[74]

 

 

 

 

 

so to try and spout garbage about why the meddling in the last election was the worst ever, you have nothing but a silly bias to base this on.

He won, he will be the president regardless of your emotional irrational outrage. and the more the left tries to undermine this, the more they

will ensure another 4 years.

 

Nice research on attempted meddling.  Did misinformation from these attempts reach 29 million Americans?

perhaps the more important question is not this mystical "reach" but the effect. that would be the consideration most important, unless of course you are stuck in a 

hate fueled emotional fallacy.

[attrayant]

1 minute ago, elmrfudd said:

16 minutes ago, heybruce said:

Did misinformation from these attempts reach 29 million Americans?

 

perhaps the more important question is not this mystical "reach" but the effect.

 

 

Reach and effect are directly correlated.  The more people reached, the greater the effect.

[elmrfudd]

1 minute ago, attrayant said:

What would you do without labels to stick on everybody?

 

Conservative (not "leftist") Max Boot: Here are seven reasons Trump should be impeached

 

And there are plenty more traditional conservative republicans where Max came from.  Stop pretending you aren't aware of these issues.

just pointing out the majority of where this blather is coming from, and they run most of the media that pushes it.

Max Boot and several other conservatives are just as triggered, but the majority comes from the loony left.

 

keep up the resistance!