The Mueller Report

[seer]

The intent was there, was obvious. Read the report dummie and stop defending the criminal underminer of democracy. Btw, Trump basically admitted to his guilt when Sessions told him that a special prosecuter was appointed. His response was "Oh my god, this is terrible, my presidency is over, I'm f....ed. That's what you call consciousness of guilt.

What was he guilty of at that point Jim? Certainly not collusion. Perhaps he just knew that Special Prosecutors can ruin a presidency in other ways.

[Bill the Cat]

I am not too certain that there will not be any further digging into the details of some of the more complicated stuff Mueller points to.

By whom? The Special Counsel Report has been filed, and the investigation portion is over.

I agree. I am not certain that is the only thing going on here though.

And that's the rub, isn't it? There is nothing concrete to indict for obstruction - only innuendo and uncharitable applications of statements made in anger.

Some have pointed to the idea that this is up for the voters to decide the next time they vote. I like that idea. I am, however, a little afraid that people are stuck in their own positions, thinking in "us and them" to an extent that it wont have an effect on too many people.

It's been like that here since Clinton took office.

[Bill the Cat]

Mueller didn't indict because in his opinion you can't indict a sitting President. That's why he left it up to Congress and there is plenty of evidence to prove, as far as I'm concerned, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the President is guilty of obstruction and that ties right in to the collusion aspect. The President is a scoundrel who thought he was above the law, and the only reason he has any chance of surviving this is because the many advisers that he ordered to commit obstruction refused to do so.

Name ONE instance, Jimmy, that he didn't have the legal authority to order.

[Charles]

And that's the rub, isn't it? There is nothing concrete to indict for obstruction - only innuendo and uncharitable applications of statements made in anger.

How do you know?

[Bill the Cat]

How do you know?

Because if there were, Mueller would have recommended to indict.

[Mountain Man]

That is luckily also how things work over here, Sparko, and that is how it should be in the legal system. However, that does not change what the report clearly says. It says: "Fourth, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would state so. Based on the facts and applicable legal standards, however, we are unable to reach that judgment."

This statement could just as easily be worded as:

"If we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would state so. Based on the facts and applicable legal standards, however, we are unable to reach that judgment."

Both statements say the exact same thing.

[Cow Poke]

You enjoy watching people in disarray do you reverend?

When they are acting like the enemy, I do, Drama Queen.

[Cow Poke]

Your jibe indicates you are under the mistaken impression that "reverends" claim to be super-Christians.

I'm not even a "reverend". The Drama Queen is ignorant.

[Mountain Man]

...there is plenty of evidence to prove, as far as I'm concerned, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the President is guilty of obstruction...

Nothing more than the actions of an innocent man wrongfully accused of a crime he didn't commit.

Really, if the evidence was as conclusive and damning as you claim then why did Mueller effectively say he had insufficient evidence to recommend indictment? For that matter, he could have, in good conscience, pulled a Comey and said that no reasonable prosecutor would press charges.

[Cow Poke]

Do you disagree with my so called talking points?

LiberalTalkingPointsForDummies?

[rogue06]

You don't provide many sources for the statements you make.

Oh?

Bryon York, who did some quick analysis on the spending done in Battleground states.

Senate Intelligence Committee chairman Richard Burr, who gave specific amounts spent.

Colin Stretch, Facebook's general counsel, who noted that the ads equaled about 0.004% of the contents in News Feed, and that a decided majority of those who actually saw the ads only saw them after the election and that 25% of the ads were never seen by anyone before or after the election.

And in the next post I added

Facebook ads vice-president Rob Goldman who stated "I can say very definitively that swaying the election was *NOT* the main goal. The majority of the Russian ad spend happened AFTER the election"^[1]

Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who has been awfully hostile toward Trump^[2], declaring that there is absolutely no evidence that a single vote was changed nor was the election outcome affected by Russia's meddling

FBI director Christopher Wray who said that the Russians "[tried] to destabilize the integrity of our system by usually backing losers and getting the losers all upset claiming something went awry, and that promotes disharmony and distrust of the election system." And as I noted, succeeded beyond what they thought possible in their wildest dreams thanks to the left.

Again let's just look at what the report says:

And at least according to Mueller's first indictment of 13 Russians (the one that blew up in his face when they showed up), they were "engaged in operations primarily intended to communicate derogatory information about Hillary Clinton" but not only to the benefit of Trump because they were also trying "to support Bernie Sanders."

They never thought Trump would win so helping him was never their goal. They wanted to cause trouble for what they thought was the inevitable Hillary Clinton Administration. As Facebook ads vice-president Rob Goldman noted "swaying the election was *NOT* the main goal" but rather "the main goal of the Russian propaganda and misinformation effort is to divide America by using our institutions, like free speech and social media, against us." This was confirmed by Christopher Wray when he said that the Russians "try to destabilize the integrity of our system by usually backing losers and getting the losers all upset claiming something went awry, and that promotes disharmony and distrust of the election system."

And again, thanks to the Democrats they succeeded beyond their wildest expectations.

And this is only focusing on social media platform. They did far more than that.

Such as? Were they running radio and TV commercials? No. Were they bribing prominent media figures to be their mouthpieces and read from scripts provided from them? Again, no. The focus was on what they did via social media because essentially that was the basket they put all of their eggs in.

So what we have is

• a minuscule amount was spent.
• the ads equaled about 0.004% of the contents in News Feed
• a decided majority of those who actually saw the ads only saw them after the election.
• 25% of the ads were never seen by anyone before or after the election.
• and Facebook said "the vast majority [of them] didn't specifically reference the U.S. presidential election, voting or a particular candidate."
• the goal of the ads weren't to sway the election but to stir up trouble for the Hilary Administration after she was elected
• according to Rosenstein there's no evidence they even influenced a single vote

Fail better next time Faker Chuck. Or maybe you really should just

Charles.jpg

1. Please note that the portion of the Mueller Report you picked to quote even said that the "total the IRA-controlled accounts made over 80,000 posts before their deactivation in August 2017" That would be 21 months after the election. Tell me Faker Chuck, just how many votes were influenced during the 21 months AFTER the election?

2. He tried to get Trump staffers to secretly wear wires so as to gather evidence to impeach Trump and who after recommending the firing of James Comey then used his firing as a pretext to name a special prosecutor to investigate Trump

[JimL]

LiberalTalkingPointsForDummies?

As I suspected, your waiting for the facts was, and is, a line of bs.

[rogue06]

What was he guilty of at that point Jim? Certainly not collusion. Perhaps he just knew that Special Prosecutors can ruin a presidency in other ways.

Pretty much what he said.

“The president returned to the consequences of the appointment and said, ‘Everyone tells me if you get one of these independent counsels it ruins your presidency. It takes years and years and I won’t be able to do anything. This is the worse [sic] thing that ever happened to me.’”

[One Bad Pig]

As I suspected, your waiting for the facts was, and is, a line of bs.

You never fail to disappoint, Jim.

[Cow Poke]

As I suspected, your waiting for the facts was, and is, a line of bs.

What have I said, JimmyPoo, that indicates I have come to a conclusion on anything without "the facts"? You're calling me a liar without substantiation.