Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Judge blows a huge hole in the Mueller report

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Judge blows a huge hole in the Mueller report

    The premise of the Mueller report from day one has always been "The Russians did it; we just have to find out if Trump was involved."

    Mueller even made a big splash when he indicted some Russian troll farms and accused them of working for the Kremlin. Except a judge recently ruled that Mueller (and in consequence his report) is not allowed to say that because he never actually proved it during the course of his investigation.

    The judge notes that the Mueller report says it “established” that the Russia government interfered in the 2016 election via the actions of Concord. But he then notes that Mueller didn’t establish anything because he never actually linked Concord to the Russia government. [...] This is important because the judge says the Special Counsel’s office violated a rule in telling the public something that was not true... [...] Thus, the judge ordered no more public statements of this under threat of sanctions by the court...

    https://therightscoop.com/judge-issu...ueller-report/

    In fact, a deep dive look into the Mueller report shows that his evidence for Russian interference is sketchy at best. Here's a summary:

    * The report uses qualified and vague language to describe key events, indicating that Mueller and his investigators do not actually know for certain whether Russian intelligence officers stole Democratic Party emails, or how those emails were transferred to WikiLeaks.
    * The report's timeline of events appears to defy logic. According to its narrative, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange announced the publication of Democratic Party emails not only before he received the documents but before he even communicated with the source that provided them.
    * There is strong reason to doubt Mueller’s suggestion that an alleged Russian cutout called Guccifer 2.0 supplied the stolen emails to Assange.
    * Mueller’s decision not to interview Assange – a central figure who claims Russia was not behind the hack – suggests an unwillingness to explore avenues of evidence on fundamental questions.
    * U.S. intelligence officials cannot make definitive conclusions about the hacking of the Democratic National Committee computer servers because they did not analyze those servers themselves. Instead, they relied on the forensics of CrowdStrike, a private contractor for the DNC that was not a neutral party, much as “Russian dossier” compiler Christopher Steele, also a DNC contractor, was not a neutral party. This puts two Democrat-hired contractors squarely behind underlying allegations in the affair – a key circumstance that Mueller ignores.
    * Further, the government allowed CrowdStrike and the Democratic Party's legal counsel to submit redacted records, meaning CrowdStrike and not the government decided what could be revealed or not regarding evidence of hacking.
    * Mueller’s report conspicuously does not allege that the Russian government carried out the social media campaign. Instead it blames, as Mueller said in his closing remarks, "a private Russian entity" known as the Internet Research Agency (IRA).
    * Mueller also falls far short of proving that the Russian social campaign was sophisticated, or even more than minimally related to the 2016 election. As with the collusion and Russian hacking allegations, Democratic officials had a central and overlooked hand in generating the alarm about Russian social media activity.
    * John Brennan, then director of the CIA, played a seminal and overlooked role in all facets of what became Mueller’s investigation: the suspicions that triggered the initial collusion probe; the allegations of Russian interference; and the intelligence assessment that purported to validate the interference allegations that Brennan himself helped generate. Yet Brennan has since revealed himself to be, like CrowdStrike and Steele, hardly a neutral party -- in fact a partisan with a deep animus toward Trump.

    https://www.realclearinvestigations....ng_claims.html

    Short version: Not only did Trump not do it, but we can't even be certain the Russians did it, either!
    Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
    But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
    Than a fool in the eyes of God


    From "Fools Gold" by Petra

  • #2
    Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
    The premise of the Mueller report from day one has always been "The Russians did it; we just have to find out if Trump was involved."

    Mueller even made a big splash when he indicted some Russian troll farms and accused them of working for the Kremlin. Except a judge recently ruled that Mueller (and in consequence his report) is not allowed to say that because he never actually proved it during the course of his investigation.

    The judge notes that the Mueller report says it “established” that the Russia government interfered in the 2016 election via the actions of Concord. But he then notes that Mueller didn’t establish anything because he never actually linked Concord to the Russia government. [...] This is important because the judge says the Special Counsel’s office violated a rule in telling the public something that was not true... [...] Thus, the judge ordered no more public statements of this under threat of sanctions by the court...

    https://therightscoop.com/judge-issu...ueller-report/

    In fact, a deep dive look into the Mueller report shows that his evidence for Russian interference is sketchy at best. Here's a summary:

    * The report uses qualified and vague language to describe key events, indicating that Mueller and his investigators do not actually know for certain whether Russian intelligence officers stole Democratic Party emails, or how those emails were transferred to WikiLeaks.
    * The report's timeline of events appears to defy logic. According to its narrative, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange announced the publication of Democratic Party emails not only before he received the documents but before he even communicated with the source that provided them.
    * There is strong reason to doubt Mueller’s suggestion that an alleged Russian cutout called Guccifer 2.0 supplied the stolen emails to Assange.
    * Mueller’s decision not to interview Assange – a central figure who claims Russia was not behind the hack – suggests an unwillingness to explore avenues of evidence on fundamental questions.
    * U.S. intelligence officials cannot make definitive conclusions about the hacking of the Democratic National Committee computer servers because they did not analyze those servers themselves. Instead, they relied on the forensics of CrowdStrike, a private contractor for the DNC that was not a neutral party, much as “Russian dossier” compiler Christopher Steele, also a DNC contractor, was not a neutral party. This puts two Democrat-hired contractors squarely behind underlying allegations in the affair – a key circumstance that Mueller ignores.
    * Further, the government allowed CrowdStrike and the Democratic Party's legal counsel to submit redacted records, meaning CrowdStrike and not the government decided what could be revealed or not regarding evidence of hacking.
    * Mueller’s report conspicuously does not allege that the Russian government carried out the social media campaign. Instead it blames, as Mueller said in his closing remarks, "a private Russian entity" known as the Internet Research Agency (IRA).
    * Mueller also falls far short of proving that the Russian social campaign was sophisticated, or even more than minimally related to the 2016 election. As with the collusion and Russian hacking allegations, Democratic officials had a central and overlooked hand in generating the alarm about Russian social media activity.
    * John Brennan, then director of the CIA, played a seminal and overlooked role in all facets of what became Mueller’s investigation: the suspicions that triggered the initial collusion probe; the allegations of Russian interference; and the intelligence assessment that purported to validate the interference allegations that Brennan himself helped generate. Yet Brennan has since revealed himself to be, like CrowdStrike and Steele, hardly a neutral party -- in fact a partisan with a deep animus toward Trump.

    https://www.realclearinvestigations....ng_claims.html

    Short version: Not only did Trump not do it, but we can't even be certain the Russians did it, either!
    Right!

    I would say you are a sucker for anything negative written about the Mueller report.

    Jim
    Last edited by oxmixmudd; 07-12-2019, 08:58 AM.
    My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1

    If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not  bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26

    This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
      Right!

      I would say you are a sucker for anything negative written about the Mueller report.

      Jim
      After reflecting on your thorough rebuttal and undeniable command of the facts, I am afraid I must concede.
      Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
      But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
      Than a fool in the eyes of God


      From "Fools Gold" by Petra

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
        Right!

        I would say you are a sucker for anything negative written about the Mueller report.

        Jim
        Kind of like you are for anything negative about Trump.
        "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot

        "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

        My Personal Blog

        My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

        Quill Sword

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
          Kind of like you are for anything negative about Trump.
          I can understand how it could appear that way to a person that doesn't understand what Trump is

          Jim
          My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1

          If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not  bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26

          This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19

          Comment


          • #6
            ox, if you have nothing of substance to contribute then I will ask you to leave the thread.
            Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
            But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
            Than a fool in the eyes of God


            From "Fools Gold" by Petra

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
              I can understand how it could appear that way to a person that doesn't understand what Trump is

              Jim
              I suggest you buy this hat:

              https://www.teeshirtpalace.com/produ...SABEgJZb_D_BwE

              and wear it.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Christian3 View Post
                I suggest you buy this hat:

                https://www.teeshirtpalace.com/produ...SABEgJZb_D_BwE

                and wear it.
                I've been asked not to continue on this line.

                Jim
                My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1

                If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not  bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26

                This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19

                Comment


                • #9
                  And now Mueller's testimony before the House has been delayed. I'm guessing the Democrats are busy writing a whole new script now that Mueller is legally prohibited from saying that he established that Russia had any involvement in the election.
                  Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                  But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                  Than a fool in the eyes of God


                  From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                    And now Mueller's testimony before the House has been delayed. I'm guessing the Democrats are busy writing a whole new script now that Mueller is legally prohibited from saying that he established that Russia had any involvement in the election.
                    Yeah, we know, MM. It never even happened, it was all a deep state conspiracy. Just ask Putin.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by JimLamebrain View Post
                      Yeah, we know, MM. It never even happened, it was all a deep state conspiracy. Just ask Putin.
                      Is that why Mueller was almost held in contempt of court for falsely claiming that he had established a Russian connection?
                      Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                      But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                      Than a fool in the eyes of God


                      From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                        Is that why Mueller was almost held in contempt of court for falsely claiming that he had established a Russian connection?
                        Yes MM. The whole thing, the wide spread and systematic interference campaign on the part of the Russians was naught but a deep state conspiracy. Just ask Putin.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by JimL View Post
                          Yes MM. The whole thing, the wide spread and systematic interference campaign on the part of the Russians was naught but a deep state conspiracy. Just ask Putin.
                          You're right, the judge was obviously an employee of the Russian government.

                          From the OP: 'The judge notes that the Mueller report says it “established” that the Russia government interfered in the 2016 election via the actions of Concord. But he then notes that Mueller didn’t establish anything because he never actually linked Concord to the Russia government.'

                          As a consequence, Mueller is prohibited by the court from claiming Russian interference because it was never proven to be true.

                          Now I'm going to tell you same thing I told the other Jim: either post something of substance, or stay out of the thread.
                          Last edited by Mountain Man; 07-14-2019, 08:20 AM.
                          Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                          But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                          Than a fool in the eyes of God


                          From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                            The premise of the Mueller report from day one has always been "The Russians did it; we just have to find out if Trump was involved."

                            Mueller even made a big splash when he indicted some Russian troll farms and accused them of working for the Kremlin. Except a judge recently ruled that Mueller (and in consequence his report) is not allowed to say that because he never actually proved it during the course of his investigation.

                            The judge notes that the Mueller report says it “established” that the Russia government interfered in the 2016 election via the actions of Concord. But he then notes that Mueller didn’t establish anything because he never actually linked Concord to the Russia government. [...] This is important because the judge says the Special Counsel’s office violated a rule in telling the public something that was not true... [...] Thus, the judge ordered no more public statements of this under threat of sanctions by the court...

                            https://therightscoop.com/judge-issu...ueller-report/

                            In fact, a deep dive look into the Mueller report shows that his evidence for Russian interference is sketchy at best. Here's a summary:

                            * The report uses qualified and vague language to describe key events, indicating that Mueller and his investigators do not actually know for certain whether Russian intelligence officers stole Democratic Party emails, or how those emails were transferred to WikiLeaks.
                            * The report's timeline of events appears to defy logic. According to its narrative, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange announced the publication of Democratic Party emails not only before he received the documents but before he even communicated with the source that provided them.
                            * There is strong reason to doubt Mueller’s suggestion that an alleged Russian cutout called Guccifer 2.0 supplied the stolen emails to Assange.
                            * Mueller’s decision not to interview Assange – a central figure who claims Russia was not behind the hack – suggests an unwillingness to explore avenues of evidence on fundamental questions.
                            * U.S. intelligence officials cannot make definitive conclusions about the hacking of the Democratic National Committee computer servers because they did not analyze those servers themselves. Instead, they relied on the forensics of CrowdStrike, a private contractor for the DNC that was not a neutral party, much as “Russian dossier” compiler Christopher Steele, also a DNC contractor, was not a neutral party. This puts two Democrat-hired contractors squarely behind underlying allegations in the affair – a key circumstance that Mueller ignores.
                            * Further, the government allowed CrowdStrike and the Democratic Party's legal counsel to submit redacted records, meaning CrowdStrike and not the government decided what could be revealed or not regarding evidence of hacking.
                            * Mueller’s report conspicuously does not allege that the Russian government carried out the social media campaign. Instead it blames, as Mueller said in his closing remarks, "a private Russian entity" known as the Internet Research Agency (IRA).
                            * Mueller also falls far short of proving that the Russian social campaign was sophisticated, or even more than minimally related to the 2016 election. As with the collusion and Russian hacking allegations, Democratic officials had a central and overlooked hand in generating the alarm about Russian social media activity.
                            * John Brennan, then director of the CIA, played a seminal and overlooked role in all facets of what became Mueller’s investigation: the suspicions that triggered the initial collusion probe; the allegations of Russian interference; and the intelligence assessment that purported to validate the interference allegations that Brennan himself helped generate. Yet Brennan has since revealed himself to be, like CrowdStrike and Steele, hardly a neutral party -- in fact a partisan with a deep animus toward Trump.

                            https://www.realclearinvestigations....ng_claims.html

                            Short version: Not only did Trump not do it, but we can't even be certain the Russians did it, either!
                            There has been an update relating to your first link:

                            Source: first link

                            UPDATE: This is apparently more nuanced than Maté had indicated on his reading of the court opinion. The main issue was not that Mueller hadn’t proven that Concord was tied to the Russian government, but that he and his report had publicly claimed that they were connected, without actually proving it.
                            The court wasn’t therefore rebuking Mueller for not proving that Concord was connected to the Russian government, but for saying they were connected when he hadn’t made the connection.

                            Thus, the judge ordered no more public statements of this under threat of sanctions by the court, noting that contempt would not be appropriate at this time:

                            © Copyright Original Source



                            If one looks a bit closer (http://https://www.courthousenews.co...r-prosecution/)

                            What becomes apparent is that you - and the first link - have really mischaracterized what this is all about. You are trying to say that the judge is somehow saying officially that Mueller didn't show Russian interference in our elections, which on the surface seems quite at odds with independent intelligence reports from multiple agencies saying the Russians DID try it influence our elections.

                            What is actually going on with this judge's rebuke is that there is enough evidence for this company's (Concord) direct connection to trying to influence the election at the direction of the Russian governement that there has been an INDICTMENT and there is a TRIAL PENDING. Since that trial has not taken place. Mueller (and Barr) saying repeatedly and publicly that a connection HAS BEEN shown could create unavoidable prejudice in any jury and make a fair trial impossible. So he has been ordered not to make the claim again.

                            Source: courthouse news

                            Though Friedrich said she agreed that Muller and Barr’s statements crossed the line, she found neither sanctions or an order of contempt were warranted since the officials had not acted in bad faith.

                            “The court remains confident that any prejudice can and will be cured through the passage of time, voir dire, and jury instructions,” the opinion states.

                            Rule 57.7 prohibits lawyers from expressing opinion that would prejudice a case, but Friedrich emphasized that “a violation of a standing court rule does not involve the same affront to the court’s authority as would a violation of a specific court order directing a party to take or refrain from a particular action.”

                            © Copyright Original Source



                            So this injunction has NOTHING to do with how much evidence exists showing the Russians interfered with our elections, but EVERYTHING to do with making sure an impartial Jury can be found for the TRIAL of Concord regarding their efforts in the Russian attempts to influence our elections.


                            Thus there is no real inconsistency between the assessments of our intelligence agencies, the Mueller report conclusions, and this Judge's injunction against Mueller. However, if the evidence is as strong as Mueller believes it to be, a conviction in this trial is expected and will take the Russian interference from being 'strongly implied by the evidence' to 'legally proven'.

                            Jim
                            Last edited by oxmixmudd; 07-15-2019, 07:46 AM.
                            My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1

                            If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not  bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26

                            This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
                              There has been an update relating to your first link:

                              Source: first link

                              UPDATE: This is apparently more nuanced than Maté had indicated on his reading of the court opinion. The main issue was not that Mueller hadn’t proven that Concord was tied to the Russian government, but that he and his report had publicly claimed that they were connected, without actually proving it.
                              The court wasn’t therefore rebuking Mueller for not proving that Concord was connected to the Russian government, but for saying they were connected when he hadn’t made the connection.

                              Thus, the judge ordered no more public statements of this under threat of sanctions by the court, noting that contempt would not be appropriate at this time:

                              © Copyright Original Source



                              If one looks a bit closer (http://https://www.courthousenews.co...r-prosecution/)

                              What becomes apparent is that you - and the first link - have really mischaracterized what this is all about. You are trying to say that the judge is somehow saying officially that Mueller didn't show Russian interference in our elections, which on the surface seems quite at odds with independent intelligence reports from multiple agencies saying the Russians DID try it influence our elections.

                              What is actually going on with this judge's rebuke is that there is enough evidence for this company's (Concord) direct connection to trying to influence the election at the direction of the Russian governement that there has been an INDICTMENT and there is a TRIAL PENDING. Since that trial has not taken place. Mueller (and Barr) saying repeatedly and publicly that a connection HAS BEEN shown could create unavoidable prejudice in any jury and make a fair trial impossible. So he has been ordered not to make the claim again.

                              Source: courthouse news

                              Though Friedrich said she agreed that Muller and Barr’s statements crossed the line, she found neither sanctions or an order of contempt were warranted since the officials had not acted in bad faith.

                              “The court remains confident that any prejudice can and will be cured through the passage of time, voir dire, and jury instructions,” the opinion states.

                              Rule 57.7 prohibits lawyers from expressing opinion that would prejudice a case, but Friedrich emphasized that “a violation of a standing court rule does not involve the same affront to the court’s authority as would a violation of a specific court order directing a party to take or refrain from a particular action.”

                              © Copyright Original Source



                              So this injunction has NOTHING to do with how much evidence exists showing the Russians interfered with our elections, but EVERYTHING to do with making sure an impartial Jury can be found for the TRIAL of Concord regarding their efforts in the Russian attempts to influence our elections.


                              Thus there is no real inconsistency between the assessments of our intelligence agencies, the Mueller report conclusions, and this Judge's injunction against Mueller. However, if the evidence is as strong as Mueller believes it to be, a conviction in this trial is expected and will take the Russian interference from being 'strongly implied by the evidence' to 'legally proven'.

                              Jim
                              Er, yes, it does. Mueller opened his case to the public without offering the proof. That either means he withheld it - which demands a why question - or he can't actually prove it. It's not a good thing for Mueller either way.

                              MM is likely right about the Dems rescheduling - this could damage their entire case. They need Mueller to speak publicly.
                              "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot

                              "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

                              My Personal Blog

                              My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

                              Quill Sword

                              Comment

                              Related Threads

                              Collapse

                              Topics Statistics Last Post
                              Started by little_monkey, Yesterday, 04:19 PM
                              6 responses
                              45 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post whag
                              by whag
                               
                              Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                              42 responses
                              231 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post whag
                              by whag
                               
                              Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                              24 responses
                              104 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Ronson
                              by Ronson
                               
                              Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                              32 responses
                              176 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                              Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                              73 responses
                              305 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                              Working...
                              X