‘We Need to Start Killing’: Trump’s Far-Right Supporters Are Threatening Civil War

[rattlesnake]

54 minutes ago, heybruce said:

I could not find any Mueller investigation into "Russian collusion".  I did find a report titled "Report On The Investigation Into Russian Interference In The 2016 Presidential Election" .  If describes an investigation that found significant Russian interference.  Is that the investigation you were referring to?

 

 

Have a wild guess. If you were somehow not aware of the Mueller probe, I suggest reading about it.

[heybruce]

53 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

Have a wild guess. If you were somehow not aware of the Mueller probe, I suggest reading about it.

Really?  You couldn't see my sarcasm directed towards your at post?

 

Clearly I'm more aware of the Mueller investigation than you are.

Edited June 16, 2023 by heybruce

[rattlesnake]

10 minutes ago, heybruce said:

Really?  You couldn't see my sarcasm directed towards your at post?

 

Clearly I'm more aware of the Mueller investigation than you are.

Then you know that the collusion allegation was at the center of it. FYI:

https://www.americanbar.org/news/abanews/aba-news-archives/2019/03/mueller-concludes-investigation/

"Special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation did not find sufficient evidence that President Donald Trump’s campaign coordinated with Russia to influence the United States’ 2016 election and did not take a clear position on whether Trump obstructed justice."

[nauseus]

5 hours ago, pomchop said:

you mean like the fantasy land of stolen elections and the call was perfect and everything i do is perfect and i have the absolute right to keep stolen classified docs and i really care about all my individual cult members and loyal morons and i am a great Christian and a very tough guy and i had bone spurs to avoid draft but can't remember which foot though i am really smart and i don't need anybody's money as i am really really rich and be sure and sign up for trump university and on and on and on....got it

on and on and on...

[heybruce]

29 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

Then you know that the collusion allegation was at the center of it. FYI:

https://www.americanbar.org/news/abanews/aba-news-archives/2019/03/mueller-concludes-investigation/

"Special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation did not find sufficient evidence that President Donald Trump’s campaign coordinated with Russia to influence the United States’ 2016 election and did not take a clear position on whether Trump obstructed justice."

Read the title of the investigation report.  It includes the words "Russian Interference", not "Russian Collusion".  The investigation did find Russian interference.

 

MAGA types are trying to distort reality by mislabeling the investigation.

Edited June 16, 2023 by heybruce

[rattlesnake]

15 minutes ago, heybruce said:

Read the title of the investigation report.  It includes the words "Russian Interference", not "Russian Collusion".  The investigation did find Russian interference.

 

MAGA types are trying to distort reality by mislabeling the investigation.

The only people distorting reality were those who pushed the following falsehood for several years:

 

Hillary Clinton 'Convinced' Trump Associates Colluded With Russia

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/hillary-clinton/hillary-clinton-convinced-trump-associates-colluded-russia-n800566

 

This fantasy led to – and was ultimately debunked by – the Mueller investigation, but not before costing American taxpayers milions of dollars.

[LosLobo]

54 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

Then you know that the collusion allegation was at the center of it. FYI:

https://www.americanbar.org/news/abanews/aba-news-archives/2019/03/mueller-concludes-investigation/

"Special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation did not find sufficient evidence that President Donald Trump’s campaign coordinated with Russia to influence the United States’ 2016 election and did not take a clear position on whether Trump obstructed justice."

You need to keep up as your post has been overtaken by more recent events.

 

Obviously, your four year old article was predicted on Barr's interpretation of Muellers' report in the era when Trump was weaponizing the DOJ through Barr.

 

William Barr is still misleading about the Mueller report, even years later - The Washington Post (googleusercontent.com)

[candide]

19 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

The only people distorting reality were those who pushed the following falsehood for several years:

 

Hillary Clinton 'Convinced' Trump Associates Colluded With Russia

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/hillary-clinton/hillary-clinton-convinced-trump-associates-colluded-russia-n800566

 

This fantasy led to – and was ultimately debunked by – the Mueller investigation, but not before costing American taxpayers milions of dollars.

Fantasy again,

- Clinton did not motivate the Mueller investigation (and before you start claiming again the usual debunked B.S.,  the IG report and the Durham report have confirmed that the investigation on Russian interference was not caused by the Steele report)

 - Also read:

https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/548794-there-was-trump-russia-collusion-and-trump-pardoned-the-colluder/

[LosLobo]

1 hour ago, rattlesnake said:

The only people distorting reality were those who pushed the following falsehood for several years:

 

Hillary Clinton 'Convinced' Trump Associates Colluded With Russia

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/hillary-clinton/hillary-clinton-convinced-trump-associates-colluded-russia-n800566

 

This fantasy led to – and was ultimately debunked by – the Mueller investigation, but not before costing American taxpayers milions of dollars.

Fantasy?

 

Perhaps the fantasy is not Hillary's but others who believe that Trump's associates did not collude with the Russians.

 

Again a recent article detailing Trumps associate and Trump Campaign Manager Manafort admitting collusion. 

 

Paul Manafort Exclusive: I Gave Trump Campaign Polling Data to Russian Associate 

 

Again another recent article detailing Durham's failure to debunk the Russian collusion which cost US taxpayers millions.

 

Analysis: Durham Report Failed to Deliver After Years of Political Hype - The New York Times (archive.md)

Edited June 16, 2023 by LosLobo

[heybruce]

1 hour ago, rattlesnake said:

The only people distorting reality were those who pushed the following falsehood for several years:

 

Hillary Clinton 'Convinced' Trump Associates Colluded With Russia

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/hillary-clinton/hillary-clinton-convinced-trump-associates-colluded-russia-n800566

 

This fantasy led to – and was ultimately debunked by – the Mueller investigation, but not before costing American taxpayers milions of dollars.

Hillary Clinton is entitled to here opinion, and US citizens are entitled to elections without Russian interference.

 

Mueller proved that Russia was attempting to influence the election and described some of the methods used.  Unless you approve of Russian interference in US elections the investigation was not a waste of time or money.

Edited June 16, 2023 by heybruce

[LosLobo]

2 hours ago, rattlesnake said:

The only people distorting reality were those who pushed the following falsehood for several years:

 

Hillary Clinton 'Convinced' Trump Associates Colluded With Russia

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/hillary-clinton/hillary-clinton-convinced-trump-associates-colluded-russia-n800566

 

This fantasy led to – and was ultimately debunked by – the Mueller investigation, but not before costing American taxpayers milions of dollars.

If you have any doubt of Trump seeking foreign interference in his first election here is it from the horse's mouth.

 

I will not dwell on the fact that this was the same act that he tried in the second election with his 'perfect phone call'.

 

Obviously, he was embolden by how to got away with the first attempt that he tried again.
 

 

[placeholder]

5 hours ago, rattlesnake said:

Then you know that the collusion allegation was at the center of it. FYI:

https://www.americanbar.org/news/abanews/aba-news-archives/2019/03/mueller-concludes-investigation/

"Special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation did not find sufficient evidence that President Donald Trump’s campaign coordinated with Russia to influence the United States’ 2016 election and did not take a clear position on whether Trump obstructed justice."

Your post shows how Barr reported the results of the Mueller investigation. For which he was raked over the coals by the Federal judge overseeing the process:

 

Judge slams Barr, orders review of Mueller report deletions

A federal judge excoriated Attorney General Bill Barr on Thursday for distorting the findings of special counsel Robert Mueller during his investigation into alleged collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.

Ina stinging 23-page opinion, U.S. District Court Judge Reggie Walton said Barr’s efforts to spin the report before its public release last year raised serious doubts about whether the Justice Department faithfully applied the law when deleting certain information from the publicly disclosed version.

“The Court cannot reconcile certain public representations made by Attorney General Barr with the findings in the Mueller Report,” wrote Walton, an appointee of President George W. Bush.

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/03/05/judge-slams-bill-barr-122449

 

In fact, Mueller listed 10 possible counts for prosecuting Trump including several obstruction of justice charges. At least one of those charges had to do with Manafort and his involvement with the Russians.

 

[placeholder]

The following is from Judge Andrew Napolitano, formerly a commentator for Fox and a very rightwing person. He offers a very clear explanation of why the evidence against Trump in the Mar a Lago documents case  is so damning:

 

Judge Andrew Napolitano: The case against Donald Trump

"It gives me no joy to write about prosecuting former President Donald J. Trump.

He and I have been friends for nearly 40 years... Knowing him as I do and knowledgeable of the law and federal criminal procedure, I can state that he is his own worst enemy, and the feds — of whom I am often highly critical — had no choice but to indict him."

https://www.ocregister.com/2023/06/15/judge-andrew-napolitano-the-case-against-donald-trump/

 

 

[Bkk Brian]

50 minutes ago, placeholder said:

The following is from Judge Andrew Napolitano, formerly a commentator for Fox and a very rightwing person. He offers a very clear explanation of why the evidence against Trump in the Mar a Lago documents case  is so damning:

 

Judge Andrew Napolitano: The case against Donald Trump

"It gives me no joy to write about prosecuting former President Donald J. Trump.

He and I have been friends for nearly 40 years... Knowing him as I do and knowledgeable of the law and federal criminal procedure, I can state that he is his own worst enemy, and the feds — of whom I am often highly critical — had no choice but to indict him."

https://www.ocregister.com/2023/06/15/judge-andrew-napolitano-the-case-against-donald-trump/

 

 

Thanks for sharing that. The best run down I've read on the very serious case against Trump

Edited June 16, 2023 by Bkk Brian

[rattlesnake]

2 hours ago, placeholder said:

Your post shows how Barr reported the results of the Mueller investigation. For which he was raked over the coals by the Federal judge overseeing the process:

 

Judge slams Barr, orders review of Mueller report deletions

A federal judge excoriated Attorney General Bill Barr on Thursday for distorting the findings of special counsel Robert Mueller during his investigation into alleged collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.

Ina stinging 23-page opinion, U.S. District Court Judge Reggie Walton said Barr’s efforts to spin the report before its public release last year raised serious doubts about whether the Justice Department faithfully applied the law when deleting certain information from the publicly disclosed version.

“The Court cannot reconcile certain public representations made by Attorney General Barr with the findings in the Mueller Report,” wrote Walton, an appointee of President George W. Bush.

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/03/05/judge-slams-bill-barr-122449

 

In fact, Mueller listed 10 possible counts for prosecuting Trump including several obstruction of justice charges. At least one of those charges had to do with Manafort and his involvement with the Russians.

 

That judge is entitled to his opinion. The bottom line is they had nothing serious against Trump, and even media outlets such as CNN, which aren't exactly pro-Trump, had to admit it:

 

Neither Mueller’s office nor subsequent prosecutors ever gained a complete understanding of the President’s financial ties, nor did they find an illegal connection between his campaign and Egypt, Russia or other foreign officials.

https://edition.cnn.com/2020/10/15/politics/five-takeaways-mueller-secret-investigation/index.html

[placeholder]

3 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

That judge is entitled to his opinion. The bottom line is they had nothing serious against Trump, and even media outlets such as CNN, which aren't exactly pro-Trump, had to admit it:

 

Neither Mueller’s office nor subsequent prosecutors ever gained a complete understanding of the President’s financial ties, nor did they find an illegal connection between his campaign and Egypt, Russia or other foreign officials.

https://edition.cnn.com/2020/10/15/politics/five-takeaways-mueller-secret-investigation/index.html

As the Mueller report noted, Mueller felt he had a strong case to make re obstruction of justice.  In this case, among other things, letting those being investigated know that he wasn't ruling out pardoning them. The only reasoh he couldn't beig charges against Trump was that it's Justice Dept policy that a sitting President not be prosecuted for criminal activity.

And, in fact, he did pardon them. So information that they might have had was kept from the investigators.

And, in fact, when the report was released, it was clear that Barr had dishonestly characterized its findings. His claim that the inquiry did not take a clear position on whether Trump obstructed justice was a bald-faced lie.

[rattlesnake]

13 minutes ago, placeholder said:

As the Mueller report noted, Mueller felt he had a strong case to make re obstruction of justice.  In this case, among other things, letting those being investigated know that he wasn't ruling out pardoning them. The only reasoh he couldn't beig charges against Trump was that it's Justice Dept policy that a sitting President not be prosecuted for criminal activity.

And, in fact, he did pardon them. So information that they might have had was kept from the investigators.

And, in fact, when the report was released, it was clear that Barr had dishonestly characterized its findings. His claim that the inquiry did not take a clear position on whether Trump obstructed justice was a bald-faced lie.

As always with Trump, the most serious, heavily publicized allegations (in this case, concerted election interference with a foreign power) are dropped because not a shred of evidence could be found, and dubious wording is then used to imply "he still did something bad".

 

"Mueller, however, refrained from recommending prosecution, saying that there were “difficult [legal] issues that would need to be resolved,” in order to reach a conclusion that the crime of obstruction of justice was committed by Trump."

 

"Or, as Trump has repeatedly reminded, the report found “NO COLLUSION” by anyone in the Trump campaign with Russians trying to sway the 2016 election in his favor. But that doesn’t preclude the possibility of obstruction, Mueller said."

https://www.factcheck.org/2019/04/what-the-mueller-report-says-about-obstruction/

[placeholder]

29 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

As always with Trump, the most serious, heavily publicized allegations (in this case, concerted election interference with a foreign power) are dropped because not a shred of evidence could be found, and dubious wording is then used to imply "he still did something bad".

 

"Mueller, however, refrained from recommending prosecution, saying that there were “difficult [legal] issues that would need to be resolved,” in order to reach a conclusion that the crime of obstruction of justice was committed by Trump."

 

"Or, as Trump has repeatedly reminded, the report found “NO COLLUSION” by anyone in the Trump campaign with Russians trying to sway the 2016 election in his favor. But that doesn’t preclude the possibility of obstruction, Mueller said."

https://www.factcheck.org/2019/04/what-the-mueller-report-says-about-obstruction/

When I quote 2 separate parts of something I put ellipses (...) to indicate I have left something out. You gave no indication of any sort what you left out. Here's what follows the "difficult legal issues" paragraph.

 

"Factoring into his decision not to weigh in on prosecution, Mueller wrote, was an opinion issued by the Office of Legal Counsel finding that “the indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would impermissibly undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions” in violation of “the constitutional separation of powers.”

“Because we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment, we did not draw ultimate conclusions about the President’s conduct,” Mueller wrote."

 

Kind of makes a huge difference to the impression that your misleadingly edited would otherwise have left, no?quote?

 

And there's more. The article quite clearly states that Barr lied when he claimed that the White House and Trump cooperated fully with the investigation. And there's a lot more. 

I honestly don't understand why you quoted an article which so forcefully and in so many ways undermines what you claim.

[rattlesnake]

13 minutes ago, placeholder said:

When I quote 2 separate parts of something I put ellipses (...) to indicate I have left something out. You gave no indication of any sort what you left out. Here's what follows the "difficult legal issues" paragraph.

 

"Factoring into his decision not to weigh in on prosecution, Mueller wrote, was an opinion issued by the Office of Legal Counsel finding that “the indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would impermissibly undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions” in violation of “the constitutional separation of powers.”

“Because we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment, we did not draw ultimate conclusions about the President’s conduct,” Mueller wrote."

 

Kind of makes a huge difference to the impression that your misleadingly edited would otherwise have left, no?quote?

 

And there's more. The article quite clearly states that Barr lied when he claimed that the White House and Trump cooperated fully with the investigation. And there's a lot more. 

I honestly don't understand why you quoted an article which so forcefully and in so many ways undermines what you claim.

I put them as two separate quotes, with beginning and end quotation marks for each of them, with a line break between them.

 

I claimed that the most serious, heavily publicized allegations (in this case, concerted election interference with a foreign power) were dropped because not a shred of evidence could be found, and dubious wording was then used to imply "he still did something bad".

 

The word salad you quoted from the article confirms that.

 

Can you provide me with a quote which confirms Trump colluded with Russia to influence the outcome of the 2016 election, which was the sole base used to justify this 32-million dollar endeavour?

Edited June 16, 2023 by rattlesnake

[placeholder]

1 minute ago, rattlesnake said:

I claimed that the most serious, heavily publicized allegations (in this case, concerted election interference with a foreign power) were dropped because not a shred of evidence could be found, and dubious wording was then used to imply "he still did something bad".

 

The word salad you quoted from the article confirms that very nicely, so thanks for that.

 

Can you provide me with a quote which confirms Trump colluded with Russia to influence the outcome of the 2016 election, which was the sole base used to justify this 32-million dollar endeavour?

If you think the case was so weak, why did you misleadingly edit the text you quoted from that article. Given that Barr mischaracterized the report and quashed further possiblities of investigation, we'll never know. We do know that Mueller listed 10 possible counts against Trump that could have been brought were he not President. 

And did you not read this from that same article:

"Our investigation found multiple acts by the President that were capable of exerting undue influence over law enforcement investigations, including the Russian-interference and obstruction investigations,” Mueller wrote. “The incidents were often carried out through one-on-one meetings in which the President sought to use his official power outside of usual channels. These actions ranged from efforts to remove the Special Counsel and to reverse the effect of the Attorney General’s recusal; to the attempted use of official power to limit the scope of the investigation; to direct and indirect contacts with witnesses with the potential to influence their testimony.”

[rattlesnake]

11 minutes ago, placeholder said:

If you think the case was so weak, why did you misleadingly edit the text you quoted from that article. Given that Barr mischaracterized the report and quashed further possiblities of investigation, we'll never know. We do know that Mueller listed 10 possible counts against Trump that could have been brought were he not President. 

And did you not read this from that same article:

"Our investigation found multiple acts by the President that were capable of exerting undue influence over law enforcement investigations, including the Russian-interference and obstruction investigations,” Mueller wrote. “The incidents were often carried out through one-on-one meetings in which the President sought to use his official power outside of usual channels. These actions ranged from efforts to remove the Special Counsel and to reverse the effect of the Attorney General’s recusal; to the attempted use of official power to limit the scope of the investigation; to direct and indirect contacts with witnesses with the potential to influence their testimony.”

Right, so you confirmed there is no evidence of Russian collusion, which was the reason why this 32-million farce (a sizeable chunk of which was taxpayer-funded) was launched to begin with.

 

Their damage control communication is weak to say the least: they are sure Trump is a bad guy although they can't act upon it because he is President… Compelling indeed.

[rattlesnake]

40 minutes ago, placeholder said:

If you think the case was so weak, why did you misleadingly edit the text you quoted from that article. Given that Barr mischaracterized the report and quashed further possiblities of investigation, we'll never know. We do know that Mueller listed 10 possible counts against Trump that could have been brought were he not President. 

And did you not read this from that same article:

"Our investigation found multiple acts by the President that were capable of exerting undue influence over law enforcement investigations, including the Russian-interference and obstruction investigations,” Mueller wrote. “The incidents were often carried out through one-on-one meetings in which the President sought to use his official power outside of usual channels. These actions ranged from efforts to remove the Special Counsel and to reverse the effect of the Attorney General’s recusal; to the attempted use of official power to limit the scope of the investigation; to direct and indirect contacts with witnesses with the potential to influence their testimony.”

Calling it misleading doesn't make it misleading.

 

There is only so much rhetorical dancing one can do to defend an erroneous position. One viable option would be to just admit you are wrong.

Edited June 16, 2023 by rattlesnake

[pomchop]

Can't we all just accept the "fact" that everything trump has ever done or will ever do is PERFECT...after all he has told us that over and over and over and over and everyone knows that donnie would never tell a lie and even if he did it would be the PERFECT lie.

[Mac Mickmanus]

2 minutes ago, pomchop said:

Can't we all just accept the "fact" that everything trump has ever done or will ever do is PERFECT...after all he has told us that over and over and over and over and everyone knows that donnie would never tell a lie and even if he did it would be the PERFECT lie.

That's not quite true, he once spelled "Coffee" wrong .

[pomchop]

17 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

That's not quite true, he once spelled "Coffee" wrong .

Heresy.....Everything trump has ever done or not done or even thought about is PERFECT....just ask his MAGA bunch and they will tell you that plus he makes the best kool aide known to mankind.

 

He also spelled indictment wrong but he may learn soon enough that it is not the same as indicated being the stable genius he claims to be.

[heybruce]

5 hours ago, rattlesnake said:

That judge is entitled to his opinion. The bottom line is they had nothing serious against Trump, and even media outlets such as CNN, which aren't exactly pro-Trump, had to admit it:

 

Neither Mueller’s office nor subsequent prosecutors ever gained a complete understanding of the President’s financial ties, nor did they find an illegal connection between his campaign and Egypt, Russia or other foreign officials.

https://edition.cnn.com/2020/10/15/politics/five-takeaways-mueller-secret-investigation/index.html

No, the bottom line is that an investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election found that there was Russian interference in the 2016 election.

 

The mislabeling of the Russian interference investigation as a Russian collusion investigation is an attempt by MAGA types to distract from a very serious problem, and to make the poor sweet Donald Trump look like a victim.

[Tug]

2 hours ago, heybruce said:

No, the bottom line is that an investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election found that there was Russian interference in the 2016 election.

 

The mislabeling of the Russian interference investigation as a Russian collusion investigation is an attempt by MAGA types to distract from a very serious problem, and to make the poor sweet Donald Trump look like a victim.

Yup unfortunately some folks drank so much (kool aid) it seem to scrambled their ability to differentiate between the truth and a lie remember when the tryed to bs every body with that meeting saying it was about adopting babies or Paul manifort now there’s a tool…..yeiks!

[jerrymahoney]

On 6/15/2023 at 3:51 PM, placeholder said:

You think that a first rate prosecutor like Jack Smith is likely to misrepresent the evidence?

“This audiotape simultaneously makes out many of the elements ... of the crimes and simultaneously rebuts and debunks his defenses,” (Preet Bharara, the former U.S. attorney for Southern New York) said.

 

“These are all his own words that he’s using,” (Asha Rangappa, a former FBI special agent) said. “There’s audiotape of him knowing that this is classified information. 

 

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/live-blog/trump-indictment-classified-documents-live-updates-rcna88714

 

Meadows’ autobiography includes an account of what appears to be the same meeting, during which Trump “recalls a four-page report typed up by (Trump’s former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff) Mark Milley himself. It contained the general’s own plan to attack Iran, deploying massive numbers of troops, something he urged President Trump to do more than once during his presidency.”

 

The document Trump references was not produced by Milley, CNN was told.

https://edition.cnn.com/2023/05/31/politics/trump-tape-classified-document-iran-milley/index.html

 

The Bedminster conversation is referenced in items 33. and 34. of the indictment.

 

What happens if/when the defense asks the prosecution for a copy of the memo referenced in 34. and as described by the former FBI agent above?

Edited June 17, 2023 by jerrymahoney

[placeholder]

23 hours ago, rattlesnake said:

Then you know that the collusion allegation was at the center of it. FYI:

https://www.americanbar.org/news/abanews/aba-news-archives/2019/03/mueller-concludes-investigation/

"Special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation did not find sufficient evidence that President Donald Trump’s campaign coordinated with Russia to influence the United States’ 2016 election and did not take a clear position on whether Trump obstructed justice."

Once again you're sighting report on William Barr's take on the issue for which he was castigated severely by a federal judge. Barr lied up and down about the conscience and conclusions of Mueller'sreport.

[ozimoron]

The message has been received. Lima Charlie.

 

Retired Major League Baseball pitcher-turned-right-wing commentator Curt Schilling told Fox News host Jesse Watters on Friday that "somebody is going to have to pull a trigger" in retaliation to the criminal charges that were filed against former President Donald Trump by United States Justice Department special counsel Jack Smith.

 

https://www.rawstory.com/donald-trump-curt-schilling/