Slashdot Mirror


Mueller Report 'Summary' Delivered to US Congress (cnn.com)

America's recently-appointed Attorney General William Barr has submitted to Congress his summary of the main conclusions from special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation, CNN reports.

"While this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him," special counsel Robert Mueller says, as quoted in Barr's summary.

It does, however, reiterate that there was clear Russian interference in America's 2016 election: The Special Counsel's investigation determined that there were two main Russian efforts to influence the 2016 election. The first involved attempts by a Russian organization, the Internet Research Agency, to conduct disinformation and social media operations in the United States designed to sow social discord, eventually with the aim of interfering with the election.... The second element involved the Russian government's efforts to conduct computer hacking operations designed to gather and disseminate information to influence the election. The Special Counsel found that Russian government actors successfully hacked into computers and obtained emails from persons affiliated with the Clinton campaign and Democratic Party organizations, and publicly disseminated those materials through various intermediaries, including WikiLeaks.

Based on these activities, the Special Counsel brought criminal charges against a number of Russian military officers for conspiring to hack into computers in the United States for purposes of influencing the election.

Barr also writes that the report leaves it to him to determine whether president Trump is guilty of obstructing justice, then adds "I have concluded that the evidence...is not sufficient to establish that the President committed an obstruction-of-justice offense."

CNN has the complete text of the four-page summary. Barr's letter concludes by saying he's still "determining what can be released."

794 comments

  1. "Summary"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Summary" in quotes? That's exactly what it is. It is a summary, not a "summary."

    1. Re:"Summary"? by jaklode · · Score: 1

      4 pages is a long summary in the post-twitter society.

    2. Re:"Summary"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How many tweets is that, assuming you include some emojis?

    3. Re:"Summary"? by guruevi · · Score: 0, Troll

      It's not a summary, it's the whole report. The report tells literally nothing we didn't already know and doesn't indict anyone that wasn't already indicted. The FBI prosecuted these Russian operators already to the extent possible.

      This is a $30-40M waste of taxpayer dollars.

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    4. Re: "Summary"? by drummerboybac · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Except that they should recoup the cost of the whole investigation in the fines and unpaid taxes they uncovered.

    5. Re: "Summary"? by Freischutz · · Score: 1

      Except that they should recoup the cost of the whole investigation in the fines and unpaid taxes they uncovered.

      Same for the Hillary e-mails investigation.

    6. Re: "Summary"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sure the investigation into the collusion between Hilary's campaign and Ukraine will be just as scrutinized by the same people demanding Trump be investigated for years on end

      Surely they were just concerned about collusion and corruption and not motivated by a political upset...that would be extremely childish

    7. Re: "Summary"? by Lucas123 · · Score: 1

      Actually, I think the investigation was covered through penalties against the convicted as well as selling off what's left of Paul Manafort's life, a small fortune he amassed through decades of illicit lobbying work.

    8. Re: "Summary"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which could have been done with a standard white collar prosecution... Once again, Democrats make us pay tens of millions for what should have cost thousands.

    9. Re: "Summary"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The report is 300 pages long. 4 pages isn't even a summary. It is a partisan attempt (by a man Trump appointed) to keep Americans in the dark about what a crook we have in the WH. Thanks for playing though!

  2. Quick, Move Them!! by Kunedog · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "While this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him

    "While the ball did not go through the goal posts, it clearly would have if the goal posts had been somewhere else instead."

    1. Re:Quick, Move Them!! by Freischutz · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      "While this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him

      "While the ball did not go through the goal posts, it clearly would have if the goal posts had been somewhere else instead."

      So basically the president did things that were deeply disturbing but technically legal So both sides can claim victory. When the dust settles the Americans will be divided into three parts, his base that would support him even if he shot a random Muslim shackled to a post on the White House lawn on live TV, the third that will always believe that Donald Trump’s name should be mentioned in the same breath as that of Benedict Arnold and the final third that’s sitting there watching it all and wondering how this could happen to their country.

    2. Re:Quick, Move Them!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It doesn't exonerate him. It allows the Attorney General to make this decision over whether his actions should be prosecuted...

      And amazingly-- the attorney general, just appointed by Trump, has decided NOT to prosecute for Obstruction of Justice. Shocker.

    3. Re:Quick, Move Them!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Four parts, including the lucky few whose lives are happy and satisfying and don't give a f**king shit about "Donald Trump" or ugly minorities, and never will.

    4. Re:Quick, Move Them!! by nine-times · · Score: 5, Informative

      I don't think you read it in context. That quote is specific to the charge of obstruction of justice, and the report says that Mueller gathered up the facts and declined to evaluate whether the activity constituted a crime. That's the context of "While this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him."

      The implication is that the President did things which are debatably criminal, but Mueller felt there were enough legal/constitutional issues that it was proper to have the AG decide whether those actions constituted a crime. We can't be sure why that is without having seen the report, but we could guess:

      There's been an ongoing debate because the President explicitly stated that he fired Comey to stop the Russian investigation, which is, in non-legal terms, obstructing an ongoing criminal investigation. On the other side, there have been variations of the Nixonian argument that "when the President does it, it's not illegal." Attempting to charge the President in this case would almost certainly go to the Supreme Court and create a bit of a constitutional crisis, and Mueller seems to have decided that it was simply "above his pay grade" as the special counsel, and a decision the AG should make.

      It's also noteworthy that the AG decided not to prosecute on the grounds that it was a question of corrupt intent, and the President's intent couldn't be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

    5. Re:Quick, Move Them!! by Freischutz · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      "While this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him

      "While the ball did not go through the goal posts, it clearly would have if the goal posts had been somewhere else instead."

      So basically the president did things that were deeply disturbing but technically legal

      What deeply disturbing things? To be an anti-establishment candidate like Obama before him? Trump is not the first anti-establishment, outsider president: Obama is. That's a well established trend now, and Russians have little to do with it. Look at all those Democratic presidential candidates (O'Rourke, Warren, Yang, Sanders, Harris, Gabbard...): they are all somewhat anti-establishment or posing as anti-establishment and/or pushing their outsider status.

      Anti-establishment?? Yeah, the trust fund baby who lives in a glass tower and shit into a golden toilet is the friend of the common man ... right.

    6. Re: Quick, Move Them!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anti globalist sounds very pro common man to me.

      Did you really want Clinton selling out to big tech firms?

      Fancy the idea of training your replacement that is willing to take â..." your salary?

    7. Re: Quick, Move Them!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      You mean, the report that all the Democrats have been wetting themselves over, did not contain what they wanted it to, so you'll just imagine it does anyways?

      You should seek counseling and/or medication for your trump derangement syndrome.

    8. Re: Quick, Move Them!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You just sit back as NY prepares its indictments for Trump.

      Special Counsels findings are one thing and Federal. Nevermid, they didn't exonerate Russia for election interference, just that Trump didn't collude. But hey, Russia interfering, which is 100% provable, it's only a declaration of war.

      POTUS hasn't met the state hammer yet. It will come, and it will be hard.

    9. Re: Quick, Move Them!! by Freischutz · · Score: 1

      Anti globalist sounds very pro common man to me.

      Did you really want Clinton selling out to big tech firms?

      Fancy the idea of training your replacement that is willing to take â..." your salary?

      So you are basically arguing, by bringing Clinton into this, that if Clinton is entitled to commit crimes it's OK for Trump to commit crimes too? Wasn't Trump supposed to drain the swamp?

    10. Re:Quick, Move Them!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I love it when techo-geeks think they're Constitutional lawyers.

    11. Re:Quick, Move Them!! by phantomfive · · Score: 2

      Attempting to charge the President in this case would almost certainly go to the Supreme Court and create a bit of a constitutional crisis

      It's not really a crisis, it's a detail that would need to be decided, and following procedure the supreme court would decide it.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    12. Re:Quick, Move Them!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "While this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him

      "While the ball did not go through the goal posts, it clearly would have if the goal posts had been somewhere else instead."

      Cries the "lock her up" crowd.

    13. Re:Quick, Move Them!! by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      So what about the other crimes, like breaking campaign finance laws by paying off porn stars he slept with?

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    14. Re:Quick, Move Them!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That same AG who was confirmed by a bipartisan vote in the Senate, you mean...

    15. Re:Quick, Move Them!! by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Those payoffs were not a crime.

      But you know what IS a crime, what is conspiracy and collusion? Paying a foreign agent to use made-up (Russian, even!) lies to build a fake dossier to attack your political opponent. And lying about it. Which is exactly what The Clinton campaign and the DNC did. Shall we look into that? I mean, they have a history of collusion, starting with colluding with the media to rig the debates...

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    16. Re: Quick, Move Them!! by Cmdln+Daco · · Score: 1

      No, they pointed out that Clinton is a big-time globalist. She would have been 'the president from Goldman-Sachs'. A clearly bought-out 'centrist' Democrat.

      If Clinton was president right now, we would be mired in a land war in Syria. Which, mind you, is all about US energy interests wanting a natural gas pipeline across Syria that Assad will not give them. Nothing more.

    17. Re: Quick, Move Them!! by Cmdln+Daco · · Score: 1

      Yes, and we can expect an impartial and fair hearing from the Deep Blue states who are shaking their fists.

    18. Re:Quick, Move Them!! by tomhath · · Score: 0, Troll

      I don't think you read it in context. That quote is specific to the charge of obstruction of justice, and the report says that Mueller gathered up the facts and declined to evaluate whether the activity constituted a crime

      You didn't read it correctly. What Mueller said was that without collusion there cannot be obstruction of collusion. Case closed.

    19. Re:Quick, Move Them!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So if it is a crime that a candidate used personal funds to pay off "porn stars he slept with", then what is it when Congress uses taxpayer money to payoff interns and staffers that they've harassed or abused?

      I demand transparency, I demand the list of all those in Congress that used that slushfund be released fully to the public.

    20. Re: Quick, Move Them!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      whenever talking about the 2016 election. Clinton is very relevant.

    21. Re:Quick, Move Them!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It could also be worth mentioning that the summary is written by a person Trump appointed to protect him after the last guy who had the job wasn't willing to break the law to do so.

      I think I'll wait until the full report is released until I pass any judgement.
      Especially since the summary implicitly contradicts statements previously done by both the President and Trump Jr.
      Also, both Flynn and Manafort have given witness under oath that aren't in line with what is implied here.

      More likely "While this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime" means that Mueller doesn't have the authority to pass judgement, only report on what transpired.

    22. Re: Quick, Move Them!! by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      We can expect all future presidents to be indicted (for trail after they leave office, under current law) by one or more states.

      'Ham sandwich' and all, it's guaranteed.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    23. Re:Quick, Move Them!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I see what you did there, but the summary uses the quote for the charge of obstruction and tries to apply it to the entire report, which actually stated there's no evidence for collusion with Russia, which is legalese for innocent. This is somewhat disingenuous.

    24. Re: Quick, Move Them!! by ClickOnThis · · Score: 1

      You mean, the report that all the Democrats have been wetting themselves over, did not contain what they wanted it to, so you'll just imagine it does anyways?

      You should seek counseling and/or medication for your trump derangement syndrome.

      We haven't seen the report yet. Just sentence fragments hand-picked by Trump's AG.

      --
      If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
    25. Re: Quick, Move Them!! by h33t+l4x0r · · Score: 1

      At least until we stop electing crooks.

    26. Re: Quick, Move Them!! by Freischutz · · Score: 1

      whenever talking about the 2016 election. Clinton is very relevant.

      ... because she won the popular vote and Trump is a looser.

    27. Re:Quick, Move Them!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why is this on Slashdot?

      Oh right. Reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!

    28. Re: Quick, Move Them!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Trump will certainly be the first to die in prison, of our elected Presidents.

    29. Re: Quick, Move Them!! by jwhyche · · Score: 0, Troll

      ... because she won the popular vote and Trump is a looser.

      Except she didn't. Once the illegal votes where removed from the record, it is clear that Trump won the popular vote too. Notice how nether of the parties are harping on that any more?

      --
      I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
    30. Re:Quick, Move Them!! by GrimSavant · · Score: 1

      I don't think you read it in context. That quote is specific to the charge of obstruction of justice, and the report says that Mueller gathered up the facts and declined to evaluate whether the activity constituted a crime

      You didn't read it correctly. What Mueller said was that without collusion there cannot be obstruction of collusion. Case closed.

      That is complete nonsense, though I've heard it's like before. You can obstruct justice and commit perjury over behavior that isn't even a crime, or is about someone else's crimes. Flynn lied about his contacts with the Russian ambassador to the FBI, but him talking with the Russian ambassador about policy for the incoming administration was not illegal (except perhaps under the effectively dead law of the Logan act), and likely not even scandalous. Bill Clinton committed perjury over a blowjob.

      And Mueller didn't say that either. Barr is saying his and Rosenstein's assessment is that they couldn't prove that Trump's conduct met the elements of the offense for the obstruction of justice statute, in particular whether Trump's public obstructive behavior targeted particular potential legal proceedings and whether they had corrupt intent. The former prosecutors I've seen have said that corrupt intent is hard to prove in general. Congress might have a different opinion on the matter, and they aren't as constrained to proving the elements of the particular obstruction of justice statutes in front of a jury as the DoJ is.

    31. Re:Quick, Move Them!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You didn't read it correctly. What Mueller said was that without collusion there cannot be obstruction of collusion. Case closed.

      First, I'm pretty sure Mueller didn't say that. Bar was the one who wrote the summary. Second, then why did Martha Stewart go to jail?

      Either way, Donald Trump should beg Robert Mueller for forgiveness for all of his slander. I've no doubt he did his best, and while I think he should have made the call on obstruction, and not passed it back to someone appointed by Trump, what's done is done. Instead he calls the whole thing illegal, likely placing Robert Mueller and those around him in actual danger from crackpots.

      The country would be a hell of a lot better off with more people like Robert Mueller in it.

    32. Re: Quick, Move Them!! by Cyberax · · Score: 1

      Once the illegal votes where removed from the record, it is clear that Trump won the popular vote too.

      Actually, removing illegal votes would move Trump even more into the hole. Fun fact, the ONLY proven voter fraud occurred in support of Trump: https://www.charlotteobserver....

    33. Re:Quick, Move Them!! by walterbyrd · · Score: 0

      Duh. Reports do not convict or exonerate.

      Reports only present what evidence was found. In this case, no evidence was found.
       

    34. Re: Quick, Move Them!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Repeat after me: "When you don't check for citizenship before allowing someone to vote, it becomes impossible to prove illegal aliens are voting."

    35. Re: Quick, Move Them!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Keep posting this drivel, little flake. I, for one, appreciate your one hand typing skills, so your time is well spent.

    36. Re: Quick, Move Them!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry, the "illegal votes" Trump found were Republicans committing voter fraud. Aww, traitors going to hang anyway? aww...https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/22/us/republican-voter-fraud.html

    37. Re: Quick, Move Them!! by bongey · · Score: 1

      Nope, you would just have State prosecutors being tried in federal court for illegal prosecutions. Federal supersedes State law. State prosecutors aren't going to be doing jack shit.

    38. Re:Quick, Move Them!! by acrimonious+howard · · Score: 1

      "While this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him

      "While the ball did not go through the goal posts, it clearly would have if the goal posts had been somewhere else instead."

      The goal post is there, in the same place it always has been, the ball is near it, possibly still rolling, and the ref didn't made a call yet on this one. Not sure how so many people are misinterpreting this.

    39. Re: Quick, Move Them!! by acrimonious+howard · · Score: 1

      No, they pointed out that Clinton is a big-time globalist. She would have been 'the president from Goldman-Sachs'. A clearly bought-out 'centrist' Democrat.

      If Clinton was president right now, we would be mired in a land war in Syria. Which, mind you, is all about US energy interests wanting a natural gas pipeline across Syria that Assad will not give them. Nothing more.

      Ya, trump has nothing to do with Goldman Sachs. I just wish people would remove their heads from, and realize what are obvious good & bad decisions for the economy. Taking advice from experts in the field? No problem. Giving tax cuts to the super rich during economic good times? Dumb, because that's when you're supposed to be saving for the bad times.

    40. Re:Quick, Move Them!! by ayesnymous · · Score: 1

      There is speculation that Mueller is one of those folks who believes a sitting US President cannot be indicted for a crime and that's why he did not charge Trump with any crimes.

    41. Re:Quick, Move Them!! by Boronx · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Do you have any evidence for any of this, that Steele was a known foreign agent at the time, or the Clinton hired him to fabricate the dossier, as opposed to researching it?

    42. Re:Quick, Move Them!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Trump paying porn starts to piss on each other seems legit. The man is whack.

      Pizza-gate is about as crazy as beans.

      Both sides are deluded with their conspiracy theories, its just that conspiracy has enough reasonable links that it looks like a respectable looking house and the other has so little in touch with reality is a coo-coo-clock insane asylum filled with Michael Jackson-like politicians in clown makeup.

      So you can't really blame the left for still thinking Trump is hiding something. Because he is or he'd release his taxes, and this report will not only exonerate him, it wills say things like "Manafort lied to everyone, he's a snake'. but we know that's not true, is it?

    43. Re:Quick, Move Them!! by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      If those payoffs are not a crime them how come Cohen was convicted and went to jail for them?

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    44. Re: Quick, Move Them!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And he failed. Clinton is still walking free.

    45. Re:Quick, Move Them!! by Mashiki · · Score: 0, Troll

      If those payoffs are not a crime them how come Cohen was convicted and went to jail for them?

      He didn't. He went to jail for process crimes, then lying over said process crimes. It isn't your fault you don't understand this, US law especially campaign laws are a giant clusterfuck. To put it simply, Obama did the exact same thing as Trump - and used a lawyer to do the exact same thing. He got off with paying a fine for pulling a mea culpa.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    46. Re: Quick, Move Them!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You have a point but don't forget where the dossier started. It was started by the Republican party to take down Trump during the 2016 primaries.

    47. Re: Quick, Move Them!! by DarkOx · · Score: 1

      We can expect all future presidents to be indicted (for trail after they leave office, under current law) by one or more states.

      Let me fix this for you. We can expect all future Republican Presidents to be indicted (for trail after they leave office, under current law) by one or more states run be vindictive leftists who don't care at all about the rule of law, or justice, and are only interested in how they can use the machinery of state to consolidate their own power.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    48. Re:Quick, Move Them!! by Rob+Y. · · Score: 1

      You didn't read it correctly. What Mueller said was that without collusion there cannot be obstruction of collusion. Case closed.

      Ummm, no. Barr said that. In his unsolicited job application to be AG, he more or less echoed Nixon's famous "If the President does it, it's not a crime". I.e., firing Comey, because the President is allowed to fire him, means that can't be Obstruction of Justice - even if the stated purpose for that firing was, y'know, to obstruct justice.. A completely circular argument that means the President is above the law - which is riduculous.

      And as for what Mueller said, I translate like this: There's plenty of evidence that Trump obstructed justice, just not the kind of evidence to convict him. I.e., if obstruction requires intent, and I was not allowed to interview him about his intent, then I certainly can't convict him based on intent. I'd have said this outright, except that, knowing that Barr would fight me on it, I thought preserving the integrity of the DOJ was more important than letting the public know what it already knows. Yes, Trump obstructed justice. Yes, he got away with it. Yes, he and others lied to cover up all the ways his campaign knew the Russians were sabotaging Clinton to help him. As to intent, it's anybody's guess whether he thought he had done something illegal and needed to cover it up - or he just wanted to go on bragging about his 'greatest ever victory' without having to acknowledge that it wasn't so great.

      --
      Posted from my Android phone. Oh, I can change this? There, that's better...
    49. Re:Quick, Move Them!! by Rob+Y. · · Score: 1

      Even if what you say is true (and it isn't), what's your point? There was cooperation between the Trump campaign and Russians connected to Putin, but we only know about it because the Steele document alerted the FBI to it and Trump fired Comey, so a special investigation had to be launched to get the details. Which, by the way, are plenty damning - just not rising to Barr's opinion of what constitutes criminal behavior for a President, which apparently requires a level of evidence that is impossible to gather.

      So what's your point. Because you say the Steele document is tainted, there shouldn't have been an investigation, and we should know nothing about what happened, and let it happen again?

      Maybe the investigation was all ultimately a waste of time. Not because of the Steele dossier, or because of the facts of the case. But because the fix was in - at least since Sessions was fired and replaced with Barr. And anybody could have told you that was going to happen. Trump advertised it for months. Would you prefer that we not know the facts and were left not knowing whether the level of collusion was much greater than the campaign simply knowing that "The Russians are working to take down Hillary, and we can cheer from the sidelines, while praising Putin - so I get to build that Moscow tower after I lose". That seems to be the real story - and it's pretty damning from a moral standpoint, but I'll accept your point that we probably can't "lock him up" over it. We could certainly impeach him - but since the Senate isn't going to go along with it, morality aside, that's a political calculation at this point, and probably not worth it.

      Still, since Trump and his enablers are now spinning this as "total exoneration", it would behoove Congress to get enough of the truth out to shut them the fuck up. I.e., comparing false testimony before the House investigators (not under oath) with the true stories told to Mueller (under oath) would be a nice start. Trump is plenty corrupt - but the bigger corruption is the total capitulation of the Republican Congress.

      --
      Posted from my Android phone. Oh, I can change this? There, that's better...
    50. Re:Quick, Move Them!! by Rob+Y. · · Score: 2

      Ummm...? Obama had affairs with multiple pornstars? Paid them off to keep it secret within weeks of his election? Got others - his own company and a friendly 'news' outlet to make the payments for him and disguise them as legitimate expenses?

      Wow, how did I never hear of any of that? I guess I don't watch Fox enough. Or would I have to have delved even deeper into the alternative universe to get that info?

      --
      Posted from my Android phone. Oh, I can change this? There, that's better...
    51. Re:Quick, Move Them!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even if what you say is true (and it isn't), what's your point?
          Trump is plenty corrupt - but the bigger corruption is the total capitulation of the Republican Congress.

      ^--- should have a score of at least 1,000! The Republican Congress and primarily their leadership has sold out to be ass-kissers for Trump.

    52. Re:Quick, Move Them!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      By bipartisan you mean: Republicans 51 for, 1 against, one did not vote vs. Democrats 3 for, 44 against?

    53. Re:Quick, Move Them!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They'll be the ones designated as "food" once the revolution comes.

      Up against the wall, traitorous motherfuckers.

    54. Re: Quick, Move Them!! by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      You don't think the Rs will turn that around on them?

      I guarantee it. It will be a bad road for the Ds to go down.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    55. Re:Quick, Move Them!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You profoundly understand how the executive branch works. If the president doesn't like any employee in the executive branch he can terminate them. Let the voters and/or Congress provide the recourse.

    56. Re:Quick, Move Them!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The same Robert Mueller who testified that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction? That Robert Mueller?

      You want more like him?

      Really?

    57. Re:Quick, Move Them!! by DarkOx · · Score: 1

      Except the ref did make the call. The AG that the Senate only just confirmed. Declined to prosecute. End of story.

      Sure the House can still impeach if that is what they want to do. A lot of American take 'high crimes and misdemeanors' to be ones where you have proof of guilt the rises to the eviduciary standards we normally expect in a criminal trial. Being Impeached is like being indicted and Senate is like the jury trial aspect. The Senate with is present makeup will not convict Trump.

      So sure my message to losers like Nadler and Schiff is go right a head Impeach Trump; The Senate can then EXONERATE him right be fore the 2020 election.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    58. Re: Quick, Move Them!! by DarkOx · · Score: 1

      Just sentence fragments hand-picked by Trump's AG.

      Hand picked with the advice and consent of the US Senate. If you want to argue our entire system of checks and balances does not work fine. If you do though that pretty much legitimizes the entire process right back to the Obama DOJ and looking into and inserting FBI plants into the presidential campaign and of a rival party.

      Just accept there is no there there; Muller ran an aggressive investigation and 2 years of looking no smoking gun. After investing a completely off the hook amount of time and law enforcement resources a form FBI director, concedes he hast got enough evidence for a case. It really is time to let this go. Either Donald Trump did not illegally collude with Russia, our entire system is so broken it can't deliver justice. The harm to very idea of representative democracy the results form continuing down this path needs to be considers. "Elections have consequences" they are supposed to have consequences. Its dangerous and stupid to normalize allowing the opposition party to obstruct by running endless investigations on thin pretexts.

      Trump has essentially been denied his right as President to staff the DOJ as he sees fit for more than half his term of office now; because had he removed anyone else everyone would have started crying "obstruction"

      We can't run our country this way. Its not right.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    59. Re:Quick, Move Them!! by nwaack · · Score: 1

      Trump derangement syndrome is a very real thing. The reaction to the Mueller report by people like you prove it.

    60. Re:Quick, Move Them!! by acrimonious+howard · · Score: 1

      Except the ref did make the call. The AG that the Senate only just confirmed. Declined to prosecute. End of story.

      So the Trump-appointed AG decided not to prosecute. That's certainly not the end of the story. There's tons of investigations still ongoing. And even the AG admits there's plenty of evidence in support of prosecution, for each and every incident that Mueller investigated. They just made a judgement call that they wouldn't prosecute. They're pretty much saying, ya, there's plenty of shenanigans here, but we're making the decision to only prosecute if we have a slam-dunk case, which we don't at this time. I think the FBI can always reopen a case if more evidence comes to light. The ref specifically did not exonerate, and did not find enough evidence to prosecute. It's a no-call at this time.

      Sure the House can still impeach if that is what they want to do....

      For the rest, I actually somewhat agree.

    61. Re:Quick, Move Them!! by Areyoukiddingme · · Score: 1

      I love it when techo-geeks think they're Constitutional lawyers.

      There's more than one actual practicing lawyer who read and post to this site.

    62. Re:Quick, Move Them!! by acrimonious+howard · · Score: 1

      Ditto.

    63. Re:Quick, Move Them!! by nwaack · · Score: 1

      What was my reaction? Oh that's right, I didn't really have one. You know why? Because I'm not obsessed with putting POTUS in prison for things he likely didn't do. You know why? Because, unlike everyone on the left, I actually want the country to succeed!!!! Yeesh.

    64. Re:Quick, Move Them!! by Topwiz · · Score: 1

      He was well known as a former British spy with contacts in Russia. That is why he was hired to dig up dirt on Trump.

    65. Re:Quick, Move Them!! by Topwiz · · Score: 1

      The Obama campaign was fined by the FEC $375,000 for failing to report over 1.8 million in donations within the required time frame.

      Cohen spent $130,000 to pay off Storm Daniels. The government claimed that the payment was a campaign expense which wasn't reported at all and that it constituted a personal campaign contribution over the $2,700 limit.

    66. Re:Quick, Move Them!! by Topwiz · · Score: 1

      The Russians hate Hillary Clinton and were working against her and to sow discord in general. They weren't pro-Trump, they were anti-Clinton. It might be effectively the same but it wasn't their intent to elect Trump. They wanted whoever won to be a wounded winner.

    67. Re:Quick, Move Them!! by acrimonious+howard · · Score: 1

      More people from the Trump administration have been indicted, prosecuted, and convicted than any administration since Nixon (or more than his as well?). Most of the investigations are just getting started. The Mueller report comes out saying, on two particular specific counts, he's apparently innocent on one, and not enough evidence to prosecute on the other. This was the description of it, anyway, from the Trump-appointed AG. When an administration is 10x dirtier than any other (going by indictments, prosecutions, convictions, known provable lies, etc), your reaction is to denigrate people calling him out, acting like they're being overly alarmed. That's the real trump derangement syndrome. It doesn't matter what he does, or what the people under his command do, some people somehow make an excuse to try to defend him. Sorry, that toy is slowly losing its shine.

    68. Re:Quick, Move Them!! by nwaack · · Score: 1

      Except that I didn't vote for him and I don't support him, so that throws your argument right out the window. However, I get a real kick out of just how incredibly badly people like you want this guy to fry for anything and everything, real or completely made up. And then, to top it all of, you have the stones to tell me that I have Trump Derangement Syndrome?!? Idiots like you are the reason the orange putz got elected in the first place. You live in fairy tale world. Wake the hell up.

    69. Re:Quick, Move Them!! by nwaack · · Score: 1

      Apparently you didn't hear me the first time so I'll repeat myself. You live in a fairy tale world and the ridiculous arrogance of people like you lost Hillary Clinton the election. Leave your echo chamber for a few minutes and wake up!!!

    70. Re:Quick, Move Them!! by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      Not sure if you really thought your reply through in the first place. Otherwise you'd know that Obama several times didn't report payments out through lawyers and middle-agents for "go away" money.

      But hey, what do I know. I can read about the various fines that Obama and his lawyers were hit with for paying fines and then saying 'whoops' and getting a slap on the wrist.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    71. Re:Quick, Move Them!! by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      Keep going, you're almost there. And don't forget, that under campaign laws using a dedicated 'slush' fund for "just piss off and leave me alone" payments, doesn't violate campaign finance laws - especially when it's your own funds.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
  3. "Not guilty" then. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    After all, courts never truly exonerate people. They simply determine whether the evidence indicates a person committed a crime or not.

    They don't deal in "innocence".

    1. Re:"Not guilty" then. by nine-times · · Score: 1

      They simply determine whether the evidence indicates a person committed a crime or not.

      Not quite. They determine whether there's enough evidence to punish someone for having committed a crime. The evidence might still indicate that they've committed a crime, but there might not be enough of it.

    2. Re:"Not guilty" then. by prisoner-of-enigma · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The evidence might still indicate that they've committed a crime, but there might not be enough of it.

      This is not a "shades of grey" issue. Either a crime was committed or not. If there is sufficient evidence to support a criminal conviction then a crime was committed. Anything short of that constitutes "not a crime."

      You're getting into a very dangerous area when you want to classify people as "criminal but without sufficient evidence to support the claim." This is a nation of laws, not a mob. How would you respond if someone called you a criminal in a public forum with intent of destroying your character or livelihood but lacked evidence to support it? I doubt you'd like anyone entertaining the idea that you were a criminal despite there being insufficient evidence.

      The lesson here is never allow fudging just because it takes down someone you don't like The gun can easily point the other way, and it's inevitable that sooner or later someone who does not share your views will do exactly that. If you don't want it done to you, don't do it to someone else.

      --
      In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
    3. Re:"Not guilty" then. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They simply determine whether the evidence indicates a person committed a crime or not.

      Not quite. They determine whether there's enough evidence to punish someone for having committed a crime. The evidence might still indicate that they've committed a crime, but there might not be enough of it.

      You are applying Clinton procedures to Trump, which is clearly erroneous.

    4. Re:"Not guilty" then. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      They simply determine whether the evidence indicates a person committed a crime or not.

      Not quite. They determine whether there's enough evidence to punish someone for having committed a crime. The evidence might still indicate that they've committed a crime, but there might not be enough of it.

      Technically there is a difference if a person gets paid for killing people or does it for fun, but the result is still dead people.

      Trump may not actually be a paid Russian asset, but really, that doesn't change the fact that the money Vladimir spent to help get him elected was probably the best money he has ever caused to be spent.

      As far as obstruction of justice goes, I disagree with the conclusion that Trump's appointees made about whether Trump obstructed justice. There is no requirement of an underlying crime. If this was the real standard everyone could obstruct justice as much as they wanted, and the cost to find anyone guilty would explode. I suppose, once again, the little people get different standards.

      Finally nothing changes the fact that Donald J Trump is truly a horrible person not worthy of any position of authority or trust.

    5. Re:"Not guilty" then. by bobbied · · Score: 1

      After all, courts never truly exonerate people. They simply determine whether the evidence indicates a person committed a crime or not.

      They don't deal in "innocence".

      Which is why the "innocent until proven guilty" concept is an important part of our justice system.

      You cannot prove a negative...

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    6. Re: "Not guilty" then. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So what benefits has Puten received?? Clinton sold Uranium 1 to Russians meanwhile Trump is making it difficult for Russia.

      Sounds like Puten would have been much better off under Crooked Hillary

    7. Re:"Not guilty" then. by bobbied · · Score: 1

      They simply determine whether the evidence indicates a person committed a crime or not.

      Not quite. They determine whether there's enough evidence to punish someone for having committed a crime. The evidence might still indicate that they've committed a crime, but there might not be enough of it.

      For crimes.. You need enough evidence to prove "Beyond a reasonable doubt" to convict of a crime.

      For Civil law, it's "most likely"

      Which is why Criminal Juries must be unanimous and why civil juries are majority rule.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    8. Re:"Not guilty" then. by gettin2old · · Score: 1

      on the flip side, innocent people have been found guilty based on "evidence" that indicated they committed a crime.

      it's always a gamble. but prosecutors aren't in the business of not prosecuting people. so saying there's not enough evidence is a pretty good indication of innocence.

    9. Re: "Not guilty" then. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So what benefits has Puten received?? Clinton sold Uranium 1 to Russians meanwhile Trump is making it difficult for Russia.

      Sounds like Puten would have been much better off under Crooked Hillary

      *sighs*

      Another of the same old lies, repeated, again.

      Uranium 1 Fackcheck. In short, your wrong. Of course by this time you likely know that your lying and don't particularly care. Props to you. I hear sociopathy is good for your career.

      Crooked Hillary is just one of those well kindergarten (err Trump) style insults that has no meaning. The fact is she did a credible job as secretary of state. The fact is that Trump is currently rated by historians as dead last. link

    10. Re:"Not guilty" then. by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      The evidence has to be admissible in a court of law. That's a roll of the dice the AG has to take.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    11. Re: "Not guilty" then. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would think a Russian troll would know how to spell "Putin."

    12. Re:"Not guilty" then. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Says the brave, brave AC legal scholar.

    13. Re:"Not guilty" then. by ClickOnThis · · Score: 1

      it's always a gamble. but prosecutors aren't in the business of not prosecuting people. so saying there's not enough evidence is a pretty good indication of innocence.

      No, it just means the prosecutor doesn't think there is enough evidence to obtain a conviction. Prosecutors are not in the business of prosecuting when it appears unlikely they will win.

      --
      If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
    14. Re:"Not guilty" then. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Trotsky-slut crime is republican yeomanry patriotic virtue. Test yo view of globalist Rawlsian nibberizing ... most prominent among DemoRat Congress-critters. How can that pestilent Quisling spew be tolerated among free men ? Thus ... butcher-out the Trotsky-slut bitches ... then only virtue exists.

    15. Re:"Not guilty" then. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Conviction? You can't convict sitting presidents, you impeach, and shades of gray is probably the most polite way to describe that process.

    16. Re:"Not guilty" then. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not about fudging. It's about what the powers of the President mean in the context of his actions. Some of these powers have been debated and negotiated during all of the past administrations. But there has been no historic debate about what was publicly displayed by the President in this case. So it may be cut and dry. For instance a public statement by the President that he fired an official because that official supported an investigation of wrongdoing by the President or his administration would seem as cut and dry as anything could possibly be. Obstruction of justice cut and dry as cut and dry can be. No fudging goes both ways. So no fudging. Just whether the machine of government will actually get around to doing its job. Trump obstructed justice in plain sight. No serious legal opinion would suggest otherwise. It's just whether the political power will be mustered to convict or whether Trump's corrupt machinations in determining the AG will buy him carte blanche. I suspect it will. Sessions would have convicted in Trump's estimation. Obviously.

    17. Re:"Not guilty" then. by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      That's a lot of words to say 'legally innocent'. Accept it.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    18. Re:"Not guilty" then. by GrimSavant · · Score: 0

      This is not a "shades of grey" issue. Either a crime was committed or not. If there is sufficient evidence to support a criminal conviction then a crime was committed. Anything short of that constitutes "not a crime."

      Do you seriously believe this? How can anyone consider such a blatant false dichotomy be insightful?

      Of course there are crimes that people get away with. It happens all the time! Big crimes, small crimes, only a fraction are ever resolved or prosecuted. I seriously doubt that whoever stole my PS2 in college got caught, but you'd have been incredibly dense to think that doing so was anything short of a crime.

      This is a serious misunderstanding of the principle of the presumption of innocence. In the eyes of the law, we should not deprive people of their liberty unless we can prove crimes based a well reasoned assessment of the evidence. But just because someone is not guilty in the eyes of the law, does not mean they necessarily factually innocent of the underlying acts, nor are they immune to collateral reputational damage.

      I'm sure Hillary Clinton would be surprised to hear that this standard applied to her in the minds of her most ardent opponents. She was never even indicted on anything, much less convicted, but still the chants of "lock her up" persist.

    19. Re:"Not guilty" then. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Trump is not innocent, his own words and actions have already admitted his guilt. Mueller can't prosecute a sitting President. Sealed indictments stay sealed. Trump dies in prison either way, don't worry traitors.

    20. Re:"Not guilty" then. by guruevi · · Score: 1

      In the eyes of the law you've only committed a crime if there is proof, direct or indirect, that you did so, otherwise you are 'innocent' which is the same conclusion as if you had not committed a crime.

      If a prosecutor determines a crime was committed, they have to prosecute/indict the person that committed the crime. They can't just determine that not "enough" evidence exists, that's what a jury is for.

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    21. Re:"Not guilty" then. by guruevi · · Score: 1

      Not the AG's job. Plenty of prosecutors will try to introduce evidence that's not admissible on the hopes that the introduction sways a jury (eg. if it was collected or stored improperly, but it's convincing) or the judge and defence doesn't notice.

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    22. Re:"Not guilty" then. by WaffleMonster · · Score: 1

      This is not a "shades of grey" issue. Either a crime was committed or not. If there is sufficient evidence to support a criminal conviction then a crime was committed. Anything short of that constitutes "not a crime."

      You're getting into a very dangerous area when you want to classify people as "criminal but without sufficient evidence to support the claim." This is a nation of laws, not a mob.

      What are you even talking about? Parent didn't call anyone a criminal. There is a clear difference between evidence and conclusions you seem to be ignoring.

      How would you respond if someone called you a criminal in a public forum with intent of destroying your character or livelihood but lacked evidence to support it? I doubt you'd like anyone entertaining the idea that you were a criminal despite there being insufficient evidence.

      This follows from the same faulty assertion.

      If someone released evidence in their possession of wrongdoing to the public this is not the same thing as labeling someone a criminal.

      If you don't want it done to you, don't do it to someone else.

      The problem with this line of argument is nobody wants to be accused or convicted of anything regardless of whether they are guilty or not.

      This argument effectively supports the proposition snitches deserve stiches.

    23. Re:"Not guilty" then. by mark-t · · Score: 1

      You cannot prove a negative...

      That is completely false. Any negative assertion can always be restated as logically equivalent positive assertion, so if it were not possible to prove a negative assertion, you could not prove a positive one either, effectively meaning that you could not prove anything.

    24. Re:"Not guilty" then. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      BUT ORANGE MAN BAD!!!!!!!!!!

    25. Re: "Not guilty" then. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So prove that you didn't pull this out of your ass.

    26. Re: "Not guilty" then. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sounds like you're having a bad day for some reason. Keep up the good work though.

    27. Re: "Not guilty" then. by mark-t · · Score: 1

      See here for what is essentially the same argument, but with a much more detailed explanation than what I provided.

    28. Re:"Not guilty" then. by Boronx · · Score: 1

      Nope, if a court actually finds somebody innocent, that will get them released from prison. This almost never happens.

    29. Re:"Not guilty" then. by Cederic · · Score: 1

      Either a crime was committed or not. If there is sufficient evidence to support a criminal conviction then a crime was committed. Anything short of that constitutes "not a crime."

      Even taking this in the context only of the matters investigated by Mueller (necessary to avoid bursting into laughter) it's wrong.

      You're getting into a very dangerous area when you want to classify people as "criminal but without sufficient evidence to support the claim."

      No, you're acting like normal people.

      This is a nation of laws, not a mob

      Exactly. The law does not prevent me from deciding you're a criminal. It does prevent me inciting violence against you because of my beliefs.

      How would you respond if someone called you a criminal in a public forum with intent of destroying your character or livelihood but lacked evidence to support it?

      Depends on context, but I do live in a country with strong defamation laws so I could if needed use the law to respond appropriately.

      I doubt you'd like anyone entertaining the idea that you were a criminal despite there being insufficient evidence.

      Well, it depends what they want to do about it. My mother is a magistrate and thinks I'm a criminal but knows she's got no direct evidence to prove it. I don't hate her for it.

      The lesson here is never allow fudging just because it takes down someone you don't like The gun can easily point the other way, and it's inevitable that sooner or later someone who does not share your views will do exactly that. If you don't want it done to you, don't do it to someone else.

      Again I think context is needed. In Trump's situation grandiose claims are being made and a very expensive and very public legal investigation has been undertaken to determine whether those claims are justified. It may well be that the report describes behaviours that are illegal but fail to provide adequate evidence to prove in a criminal court that they took place.

      That doesn't mean that they didn't take place, and sadly the US will be full of idiots claiming that they did and idiots claiming that they're lies. Everyone else will be shrugging, deciding Trump probably isn't angelically pure and voting in the next presidential election based on the policies, campaign expenditure and hairstyle of the candidates, because that's what Americans do.

    30. Re: "Not guilty" then. by Cederic · · Score: 1

      Why the fuck would I give a shit what a historian thinks about current affairs? They're way out of their speciality.

      Ask historians fifty years from now where they rate Trump. It may or may not be dead last but with the benefit of objective impartiality I'm betting they disagree with the current crop.

    31. Re:"Not guilty" then. by Cederic · · Score: 1

      Sadly no, it merely means that prosecutors in the US prioritise conviction rates at trial above justice. If that means they can bully someone into pleading guilty they will, if it means letting someone they can't bully go free because at trial they'd risk losing, they will.

      So wealthy or hardened criminals walk free, poor people go to prison. It's not justice.

    32. Re:"Not guilty" then. by Cederic · · Score: 1

      They can't just determine that not "enough" evidence exists, that's what a jury is for.

      just determine that not "enough" evidence exists

    33. Re:"Not guilty" then. by Cederic · · Score: 1

      They can't just determine that not "enough" evidence exists, that's what a jury is for.

      Erm. Sure they can.

      It's pretty much the only way to have an affordable and sustainable justice system. Otherwise half the country would be on trial half the time.

      E.g. almost nobody that drives has at no point committed an offence such as speeding, driving dangerously or driving without due care and attention (or whatever the US equivalents are). By your logic the police should charge the entire fucking country with driving offences and let juries sort it all out.

      In reality the police wait until they have substantial evidence likely to achieve a conviction, because that's a rather more optimal use of resources (and much less likely to cause civil insurrection). In other words, they

      just determine that not "enough" evidence exists

      (a missing angle bracket broke my previous reply. 20 years of posting on Slashdot and I still don't hit preview)

    34. Re:"Not guilty" then. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is not a "shades of grey" issue. Either a crime was committed or not. If there is sufficient evidence to support a criminal conviction then a crime was committed. Anything short of that constitutes "not a crime."

      So many poor arguments in these comments I have ignored, but this idiocy takes the cake. What you can only be saying is "if you get away with a crime, there was no crime." That is quite an astounding error. Criminals get away with crime all the time, this does not mean a crime was not committed. President Nixon is a decent counter-example to your idiocy. He was never charged, and he was pardoned. Why would he have been pardoned if there was no crime? The crime existed regardless of absence of prosecution or conviction.

      You seem pretty smart. But don't try to be dumb just to support your guy. Your guy is a bigot, a racist, and frankly a criminal. Find someone better, this guy is a loser, and so are you for trying to twist fact to make him seem innocent. He may be without intent, but he is certainly a criminal of some measure.

    35. Re:"Not guilty" then. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're getting into a very dangerous area when you want to classify people as "criminal but without sufficient evidence to support the claim." This is a nation of laws, not a mob. How would you respond if someone called you a criminal in a public forum with intent of destroying your character or livelihood but lacked evidence to support it? I doubt you'd like anyone entertaining the idea that you were a criminal despite there being insufficient evidence.

      Republicans spent my childhood calling me Satanic for playing Dungeons and Dragons, to say nothing of Nixon's crusade against hippies and McCarthy. Which is to say, liberals have an excellent command of what that is, and we're not impressed by protestations that holding you accountable for your sins might usher in a terrible world that we already live in. Particularly when you're bent on defining crime as including "use of marijuana", "having sex with someone of the same gender" and "looking at naked pictures".

    36. Re:"Not guilty" then. by bigdavex · · Score: 1

      This is not a "shades of grey" issue. Either a crime was committed or not. If there is sufficient evidence to support a criminal conviction then a crime was committed. Anything short of that constitutes "not a crime."

      You're arguing against objective reality.

      --
      -Dave
    37. Re:"Not guilty" then. by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      No. If a court finds someone 'wrongly convicted', they will get them released from prison.

      That's not the same as 'innocent'.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    38. Re:"Not guilty" then. by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      Prosecutors are not in the business of prosecuting when it appears unlikely they will win.

      SCOTUS says they shouldn't be, but disagrees with your assessment of what's actually happening.
      https://observer.com/2016/07/u...

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
  4. Obligatory Cartman by wispoftow · · Score: 1, Funny

    Your tears of unfathomable sadness are delicious

  5. Show me the man and I’ll find you the crime. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Lavrentiy Beria said to Stalin

    "Show me the man and I’ll find you the crime."

    Muller had two years and achieved a come FAIL!!! Clearly, the Democrats should have hired a Russian to get the job done.

  6. Cue the trolls by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now it becomes a full-blown PR war.

    1. Re:Cue the trolls by HornWumpus · · Score: 0

      Always was. The trolls now have one less official position to troll from. But they've gained the house, so about same.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  7. The real question by Patent+Lover · · Score: 0

    The real question is why did our president just have a Twitter fight with a dead man?

    1. Re:The real question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I guess it is because that dead man left a knife in the back of our president.

    2. Re:The real question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because Trump likes to troll people who ask those kind of questions. Living rent free in your head.

    3. Re:The real question by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The real question is why did our president just have a Twitter fight with a dead man?

      Because it's only now that they're intellectual equals?

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    4. Re:The real question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Because the media uses said dead man as a cudgel against the president.

    5. Re:The real question by The+Rizz · · Score: 1

      The real question is why did our president just have a Twitter fight with a dead man?

      Because he thought he'd finally be able to win an argument with him.

      He was wrong.

    6. Re:The real question by Freischutz · · Score: 1

      The real question is why did our president just have a Twitter fight with a dead man?

      I think George Conway has you covered on that subject: https://twitter.com/gtconway3d...

    7. Re:The real question by nonBORG · · Score: 0

      This is what makes Trump Trump.

      99% would not do that because they have political point to everything they say and it might not go down well since he is dead. Trump says what he is thinking and then causes everyone to talk about for a week. Think of it like this everytime he does something that starts a media fire it just puts him in the spot light (which is what will make him win next time.) and he is on twitter with a big box of matches. He is not politically correct at all but that is a good thing in so many ways (it also has it's down side.)

      The real question is after all this time and effort why the left media and politicians won't let go of this and say we did not get him on collusion or obstruction. The answer of course is TDS( Trump Derangement Syndrome ) it has literally sent them round the bend.

      --
      You can't handle the truth! - Because I don't post left all my comments get modded down, bye bye Karma.
    8. Re:The real question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is, by far the best, and only true response. He is a wonderful distraction. The man is no dummy. He knows how to get everybody to start shooting at each other. He's a deep sociopath, but he's not crazy, or stupid.

    9. Re:The real question by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      Why? Because he wouldn't cough up the money? That knife?

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    10. Re:The real question by ClickOnThis · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The real question is why did our president just have a Twitter fight with a dead man?

      Because it's only now that they're intellectual equals?

      Listen, he spends his weekend obsessing over great men because he knows it, and I know it, and all of you know it: he will never be a great man [...] My father was his kryptonite in life, he was his kryptonite in death. On a personal level, I agree with you, all of us have love and families, and when my father was alive, up until adulthood, we would spend our time together cooking, hiking, fishing, really celebrating life, and I think it's because he almost died [...] And I just thought, 'your life is spent on the weekend not with your family, not with your friends, but you're obsessing, obsessing over great men you could never live up to.' That tells you everything you need to know about his pathetic life right now. -- Meghan McCain

      --
      If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
    11. Re:The real question by Cmdln+Daco · · Score: 1, Insightful

      McCain wasn't a great main. He was the son and grandson of Admirals. That was the only reason he even got his wings. He was a silver spoon pilot, and became a silver spoon POW.

    12. Re:The real question by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      McCain was responsible for the largest graduating class in Naval academy history.

      They just had to get better grades than him.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    13. Re:The real question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry, Trump is guilty of hundreds of crimes. Mueller just couldn't prosecute the sitting President and left it to Congress to decide instead. They will. Trump dies in prison either way, don't worry traitor faggots. He's so dumb lol.

      The report 100% does not exonerate Trump, despite Trump faggots lying. In fact, that's one of the few things we know it says, verbatim. Trump is still a suspect being investigated on hundreds of crimes.

      Buried under the prison where he belongs, America will be great again.

    14. Re:The real question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No it really isn't the "real" question, actually.

    15. Re:The real question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...to get in the last word?

    16. Re:The real question by syn3rg · · Score: 1

      To get in the last word?

      --
      The contents of this message have been doubly encrypted by ROT13
    17. Re:The real question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He's President, something John McCain could never live up to, though he tried. Project harder.

  8. Welp, looks like a big old nothing burger by rsilvergun · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'm disappointed but not surprised. In order for anything to be pinned on Trump he'd actually have to have done something. I don't mean something criminal, I mean anything at all.

    He doesn't seem to be involved at all in day to day governing let alone campaigning. He's a figurehead. It becomes obvious when he has to interact with world leaders. In that case he can't just hand it off to folks really in charge since it's expected to be him. The most telling example was that phone call with Turkey where he got talked into pulling out of Syria. He backed down on the pledge as soon as his handlers got ahold of him again.

    He's still openly flaunting the emoluments clause. And that bit with Deutsche bank where they loaned him $2 billion but there's an email chain showing he likely couldn't pay it back stinks to high heaven. That said it looks like nobody cares enough to bother with those. A few attorney generals will sue but I don't think anything'll come of it. Ultimately, we here don't spill the blood of kings.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:Welp, looks like a big old nothing burger by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're disappointed that the president wasn't involved in a criminal conspiracy with a foreign nation?

      I'm happy that no evidence was found. Do you really want your president to be that kind of criminal?

    2. Re:Welp, looks like a big old nothing burger by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He's still openly flaunting the emoluments clause.

      A laughably partisan interpretation. What's next? The Logan Act?

      Stop listening to partisan hacks (on either side). They make you dumb. Believing them makes you a fool. Stop being a fool. It doesn't help you. It doesn't help your friends and family. It doesn't help the country. It makes things worse.

    3. Re:Welp, looks like a big old nothing burger by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      A nothingburger? You should tell the 8 people in jail that they were jailed over nothing. I'm sure they'll be happy to know.

    4. Re:Welp, looks like a big old nothing burger by nine-times · · Score: 2, Informative

      Oh, he's done stuff. He's certainly committed crimes. This report was specifically addressing two questions:

      1) Did Trump actively and knowingly conspire with the Russians to hack Hillary's emails in a way that constitutes a specific crime? The short answer here was, "We didn't find enough evidence to charge him with a crime."
      2) Did Trump technically commit the crime of obstruction of justice? The short answer here was, "He at least kind of did, but it's a difficult legal question and I'll leave it to the Attorney General to decide."

      So far, we only know those short answers, not the long answers. Either way, there's still work for Congress to do to investigate.

    5. Re: Welp, looks like a big old nothing burger by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, I wanted him to testify, under oath, and admit to the evidence. Trump is a draft dodging, marriage vow betraying, tax cheating, loan defaulting coward.

      And deep down he knows it, which is why he lashes out and projects so pitifully.

    6. Re:Welp, looks like a big old nothing burger by HornWumpus · · Score: 1, Interesting

      When Trump 'asked' the ruskies for a copy of Hillary's emails, her server had been down for about a year.

      The Ds know this, but can't help lying. Their supporters are dumb enough to accept it.

      You knew the answer to 1 at least two years ago. Just willfully ignorant.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    7. Re: Welp, looks like a big old nothing burger by Cmdln+Daco · · Score: 1

      Ted Kennedy makes Trump seem like an amateur. Kennedy made overt deals with the Soviet Union when they were still explicitly Communist. And the Kennedy dynasty got their money from illegal liquor trade during prohibition. Joe Kennedy was that era's Manuel Noriega.

      Not to change the topic, but we were talking about draft dodging pieces of shit.

    8. Re:Welp, looks like a big old nothing burger by Cmdln+Daco · · Score: 2

      You mean the 8 people in jail for unrelated crimes that they were pinned on to try to force them to act against the President? With an investigatory force as big as this Mule-er fella had, they could find something on anybody. And we are talking about political sleaze people who operated in Washington. It was easy to find stuff on them.

    9. Re:Welp, looks like a big old nothing burger by h33t+l4x0r · · Score: 1

      Sure but most of his re-election campaign would have been that particular group of criminals. I think he's going to have a hard time finding a campaign manager when that time comes.

    10. Re:Welp, looks like a big old nothing burger by kenh · · Score: 1

      And what were they convicted of (and your incarceration number is a bit high, but why quibble)?

      Process crimes, crimes that occurred before trump was a candidate, tax evasion, failing to register as foreign lobbyist, etc.

      No one charged, no one convicted, no one incarcerated for "collusion".

      All Mueller proved with the convictions is that if you press long enough, you can likely find SOME crime to charge anyone with.

      --
      Ken
    11. Re:Welp, looks like a big old nothing burger by tinkerton · · Score: 2

      They already know. Some like Papadopoulos and Flynt were really jailed for nothing. Manafort at least committed tax fraud, but he did nothing related to collusion claims.
          there is even someone at the wapo willing to say that the whole Mueller enterprise was a massive failure , with press complicitness
      https://www.washingtonpost.com...?
      Meanwhile you're still clutching at straws.

    12. Re: Welp, looks like a big old nothing burger by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Kennedy's didn't get their money from illegal liquor (well some of it maybe), they got their money from insider trading. And to be fair he did a lot of the original work on making insider trading illegal.

    13. Re: Welp, looks like a big old nothing burger by Cmdln+Daco · · Score: 1

      Joe Kennedy was a rum runner during prohibition. That's how he got his money to start with.

  9. Barr's summary reads like it was written by the WH by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We *really* need to see the report.

  10. Goal posts haven't moved by rsilvergun · · Score: 1, Troll

    it's more like there's a couple hundred different posts. There's emoluments. There's campaign finance. There's tax evasion (lots and lots of that).

    The reason nobody ever thought Trump would run for real is that he's been breaking the law his entire life and getting away with it because we don't punish the very wealthy. As it stands we're not going to punish Trump unless the American people at large change their minds. Right now he could shoot a man dead in Time Square and get away with it. Hell, some of his supporters want him to take over and become a dictator.

    Will that change? Who knows. I know either way the rule of law has been significantly eroded by his presidency. Do his supporters love him enough to overlook that? Probably.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:Goal posts haven't moved by HornWumpus · · Score: 0

      You too will learn to _love_ god emperor Trump.

      Nobody believes either side is for 'the rule of law', but good to see you're for it when a R is in charge. Exactly the same as the other side.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    2. Re:Goal posts haven't moved by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You too will learn to _love_ god emperor Trump.

      Nobody believes either side is for 'the rule of law', but good to see you're for it when a R is in charge. Exactly the same as the other side.

      God emperor?? I seem to remember Leto turning into a giant worm creature with a human head and hands, so will Trump turn into a giant slithering cock-n-balls with a human head and tiny atrophied hands?

    3. Re:Goal posts haven't moved by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Give it up Captain Ahab. If you want your guy elected President, tell him to campaign in Wisconsin. The justice system doesn't exist to grant your party do-overs for elections. Every time you try to use it for that purpose, it shows everyone how fundamentally corrupt your side is.

    4. Re:Goal posts haven't moved by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      That's just you, projecting things you love onto the god emperor.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    5. Re:Goal posts haven't moved by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ^ This same moronic faggot asserts casually there's "$50 worth of steel" in the average vehicle...

      https://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=12962106&cid=57704784

      Don't worry traitor, Trump dies in prison either way.

    6. Re:Goal posts haven't moved by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dear deity slashdot, this is what passes for insightful these days?

      Please quote any part of it that provides insight.

    7. Re: Goal posts haven't moved by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think if there was anything relating to taxes, the IRS would have said something by now. They do have his tax forms.

      For the campaign finance thing, John Edwards did the same thing with hush money under the same circumstances and for the same reason, and the FEC didn't count that as campaign spending.

    8. Re:Goal posts haven't moved by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's emoluments. There's campaign finance. There's tax evasion (lots and lots of that).

      Enough about AOC, we're supposed to be talking about Trump here.

    9. Re:Goal posts haven't moved by Cederic · · Score: 1

      "turn into" ?

      (posting with no karma bonus because this one's going to hurt)

    10. Re:Goal posts haven't moved by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If hes talking about scrap value, hes pretty damn close.

    11. Re:Goal posts haven't moved by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Somehow in your vast newsgathering talent, you (deliberately) missed the rally where some dumb cunt actually said "Duuuuhhh.... If there is going to be a dictator, I want it to be Trumpf! Agaghhhg"

      Now what was that you were saying, Traitor Boy?

  11. Re:Trump's campaign manager and personal lawyer... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Actually, Manafort and Cohen both been convicted of cheating on their taxes in cases unconnected to Trump and his campaign.

    As for the rest, here, directly from the report:

    As noted above, the Special Counsel did not find that any U.S. person or Trump campaign official or associate conspired or knowingly coordinated with the IRA in its efforts, although the Special Counsel brought criminal charges against a number of Russian nationals and entities in connection with these activities.

    and

    But as noted above, the Special Counsel did not find that the Trump campaign, or anyone associated with it, conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in these efforts, despite multiple. offers from Russian-affiliated individuals to assist the Trump campaign.

    and this

    After reviewing the Special Counsel’s final report on these issues; consulting with Department officials, including the Office of Legal Counsel; and applying the principles of federal prosecution that guide our charging decisions, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and I have concluded that the evidence developed during the Special Counsel’s investigation is not sufficient to establish that the President committed an obstruction-of-justice offense.

    Wow! That's the exact opposite of what you said! There was no underlying crime of "collusion" or "conspiracy", AND there was no evidence that Trump attempted to obstruct any investigation even if there had been one.

  12. Re:NO COLLUSION by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Left wing conspiracy kooks will die in prison!

  13. Re:NO COLLUSION by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Left-wing conspiracy kooks on suicide watch!"

    LOL!!!!!!!!!!!

  14. Re:Show me the man and I’ll find you the cri by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Achieved a fail?
    It was his job to get to the bottom of the allegations. I'd say he did his job, whether you like the outcome or not.
    If you can't prove the guilt of a man beyond reasonable doubt, we must presume him to be innocent of the alleged crime.

    That doesn't mean that Kremlin funded agencies did nothing at all. It also doesn't mean that Trump is not an asshole. Those where not the charges. But it certainly does look like there was no collusion.
    So can we put this thing finally to rest or are we going to repeat it ad nauseam like Clinton's emails?

  15. Re:Using CNN as the source by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 0

    Using CNN the most biased, fake news organization in existence, why would you link that to /. ?

    Um, because Fox "News" hadn't posted it yet --- duh. I mean, if you're wanting the most biased, fake news organization.

    [ Just sayin' ]

    --
    It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
  16. Still a con man by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    A good con man makes sure nothing can be traced back to him. Can you prove this? Maybe. But there are details in the report the public will never see, which will lead to a lot of speculation.

    My take-a-way from this is simple: Trump is a con man. The very reason this investigation was necessary at all speaks to this, along with his juvenile behavior. That he was apparently so stressed out is also telling. What does he know that we don't?

    Getting this clown and his associates out of office would be a larger priority for this country. What a disaster.

    1. Re:Still a con man by guacamole · · Score: 1

      All politicians are con-men. At least Trump hasn't conned and dragged the whole country into a 15 year old devastating war like GWB did in 2003. _THAT_ was a disgrace is impeachment-worthy. That did not happen, but watch the liberals now dwell on obscure campaign finance laws and the definitions of obstruction of justice for the rest of this year.

    2. Re:Still a con man by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All politicians are con-men. At least Trump hasn't conned and dragged the whole country into a 15 year old devastating war...

      Obama said "If you like your insurance you can keep it." rather than "If you like your insurance and it meets the new minimum standards you can keep it." That's about it, and republicans repeat it several times a day at times. There is certainly nothing to indicate that Obama was anything but basically a good man trying to do his job, and certainly not a con man.

      As far as Bush's war goes, yah, I'm not a great fan of that either. Whenever you add chaos into a system, expect to have to do a lot of work to re-establish order. The difference between Bush and Trump though, is Bush I think was a patriot. I may have totally disagreed with a lot of what he did, but he wasn't out for himself, at least not primarily like Trump is.

    3. Re:Still a con man by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Come and see the victim of a 'slow grift'. He's internalized the bullshit ('certainly not a con man'), ready to be harvested.

      You believed some small lie, decades ago, it's come to this.

      If you had seen 'OT3' on day one, you would have laughed. But there you are.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    4. Re:Still a con man by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      Trump is a con man.

      Yeah, and despite that, he won. What does that say about the so called "opposition"? He's not the only one, and he's not the worst. His real "crime" is for exposing the con game for what it is.

      What's even sadder is that there still is no real opposition, even now. There is only distraction, to rebuild the facade and restore the old order. And so, the damn pendulum swings back. This time it'll be different, right?

      Getting this clown and his associates out of office would be a larger priority for this country. What a disaster.

      What makes putting the same old shit back in place any less of a disaster?

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    5. Re:Still a con man by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know when all this Russian meddling was going on, and fake shit and investigations based on lies was happening?

      When President Obama was in office.

      This is HIS fucking fault. He knew about it, and he actively participated in it. Per the sworn testimony of his own DOJ staff.

    6. Re:Still a con man by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know when all this Russian meddling was going on, and fake shit and investigations based on lies was happening?

      When President Obama was in office.

      This is HIS fucking fault. He knew about it, and he actively participated in it. Per the sworn testimony of his own DOJ staff.

      Actually he tried to act to warn about the Russian interference, but McConnell blocked him. Now he could have acted anyway, but then it would have looked blatantly partisan. Should he have acted anyway? Yes, but to say he did nothing is not correct.

      The one who did nothing. No worse, he actively tried to cover for them is our current Dear Leader. His intelligence agencies told him exactly what happened and he is like, but Vladdy promised extra special that he didn't do it and I believe the guy who murders his opposition. That's collusion in my book, even if it was after the fact, and even if the reason for it was to save his own ass. At some point the reasons don't matter to the victim of a crime, and America is a victim of this mess.

      As far as fake shit and investigations based on lies. You'll have to be more explicit. Benghazi wrings a bell though.

  17. Re:Using CNN as the source by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

    Schadenfreude.

    --
    John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  18. Seek help for emotional stress you will fact by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    The Trump officials were convicted of lying to the FBI. That is something separate from collusion, which sadly for you Mueller says there wasn't any evidence of. The lies were related to non-collusion stuff, much of it pre-election stuff, personal business and contacts stuff.

    Actually Trump jokingly encouraged hackers to release truthful information about Hillary, her emails. Yeah, the truth revealed by authentic emails, how dare Americans allow such things to come to the public light.

    Sadly for you, Mueller says there is no evidence of obstructions.

    Please seek help, as your fantasy further evaporates into smoke you will likely experience even more emotion stress.

    1. Re: Seek help for emotional stress you will fact by bensafrickingenius · · Score: 1

      An internet lawyer who cannot spell "perjure"? Delicious!

      --
      I am not left-handed, either!
    2. Re: Seek help for emotional stress you will fact by segedunum · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If you purjor yourself while having a conversation about your alleged collusion, chances pretty good you were colluling. At the very least you did something worse than purjor yourself.

      The cognitive dissonance you get to see over this is fascinating.

    3. Re: Seek help for emotional stress you will fact by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      Amazing that you could deduce that - and the 20+ staff of lawyers, and 50+ FBI agents on the Mueller team couldn't deduce that legal insight!

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    4. Re: Seek help for emotional stress you will fact by Patent+Lover · · Score: 1

      and "colluding"

    5. Re: Seek help for emotional stress you will fact by quonset · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's like those people who say Hillary committed a crime (email server) yet all those lawyers and agents at the FBI said otherwise.

      It's almost as if those people know what they're doing and do it without regard for who is being investigated.

    6. Re: Seek help for emotional stress you will fact by Cmdln+Daco · · Score: 1

      That one looks more like a typo. He might have typed it on an Apple keyboard.

    7. Re: Seek help for emotional stress you will fact by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1, Troll

      It's like those people who say Hillary committed a crime (email server) yet all those lawyers and agents at the FBI said otherwise.

      Why that is a lie... James Comey explicitly stated that:

      Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case

      It's actually a prosecutor's role to make that choice, not the FBI. The FBI found evidence of violations - but tried to (and appeared to, successfully) - protect an Administration confidant. There actually was evidence of a crime committed - but it was willfully ignored by the FBI and the Obama DOJ.

      Why do you want a partisan DOJ to ignore crimes by their "friends"?

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    8. Re: Seek help for emotional stress you will fact by quonset · · Score: 2

      So it's like the current case where there is evidence of obstruction of justice, but not enough for a prosecution.

      Got it. Same thing. Evidence of a crime but the prosecutors chose not to prosecute.

    9. Re: Seek help for emotional stress you will fact by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 0, Troll

      No, read what Comey said. He said there was plenty of illegal happenings, including handling of classified and top secret information. But he unilaterally decided that a prosecutor wouldn't charge, so he would not recommend anything.

      There was no saying "we're not sure what there was, since that wasn't our purview" like with Mueller; this was "there was lots of illegal activity, but we don't think it was on purpose and prosecutors probably won't charge so we'll ignore the crime".

      Plenty of evidence of a crime, just an unwillingness to prosecute it. I don't care if you're a Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, or Communist - willfully ignoring to charge actual crimes should be abhorrent to all but the most strident political hacks.

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    10. Re: Seek help for emotional stress you will fact by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 0

      Oh, and the ONLY thing that all the Democrats are hanging on for obstruction is the firing of Comey. That same James Comey who unequivocally stated that President Trump had full authority to fire him. There was no obstruction - per the very man who's firing was supposedly the obstruction!

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    11. Re: Seek help for emotional stress you will fact by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sucks when the shoe's on the other foot, doesn't it? Kinda like when Obama used his phone and magic pen to bypass Congress. When you set precedent you can't really complain when the next guy does the same thing now can you?

    12. Re: Seek help for emotional stress you will fact by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It was a turning point in Trump's ADMISSION of his obstruction, sure. Comey is less than 1% of Trump's obstruction of justice, sorry, he'll be charged. On live TV and everything. Tsk. Drumpf the traitor hangs either way.

      Barr cannot prosecute a sitting POTUS, he said so. That's all. Other people will do so, shortly.

    13. Re: Seek help for emotional stress you will fact by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Read the report. They actually said no-one would prosecute despite the evidence. The tone of that report was very different from this one.

    14. Re: Seek help for emotional stress you will fact by mpercy · · Score: 1

      At least one difference, the laws regarding handling of classified materials explicitly does not require any intent to violate. Simple carelessness or negligence is sufficient. Intent only makes it worse. Despite the evidence, the FBI made up an intent requirement, but only for Sec. Clinton and her cronies.

      "Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.

      "To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now.

      18 U.S. Code 793. Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information

      (f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—

      Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

    15. Re: Seek help for emotional stress you will fact by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What they did with Trump is so far removed from lawful investigations that with no immediate indictment, it is clear it was a travesty of justice.

      Some people are afraid to accept this as a travesty of justice because it is their most-hated boogeyman and they don't care about their favorite boogeyman being treated unfairly and outside of law. Many of them have publicly stated murder fantasies about him and still steadfastly claim to be on the right side of the law and morality and would never see why murder of their hated person isn't moral, but murder and murder was always illegal. They cannot comprehend the rule of law, even if they tried. But I digress.

      I am pretty confident in human emotional behavior being what it is that I suggest the following:

      Take a hundred million as-of-yet law-abiding citizen, bring them to their local police departments, not too many at once per PD of course, and grill each and everyone for three weeks for the alleged crime of temporarily hiding drugs in their apartment for a few weeks in late 2015. Record the entire conversation on video, review it back and forth, ask all acquaintances of them about their own apartments, subpoena everyone involved a million times till sunday for every piece of their lives. Then review video recordings of the questioning and make a perjury charge out of every inaccuracy and contradiction. Drop the charges on drug hiding and then convict everyone for perjury. Get fifty million new inmates working for the prison-industrial complex.

      TL;DR create a huge discomfort for people, question them about unimportant events long in the past and compare their testimony with minute-by-minute reconstructions of their actual past and you will have almost half the people unwillingly and unknowingly perjure themselves.

    16. Re: Seek help for emotional stress you will fact by phlinn · · Score: 1

      In Comey's defense, he was thrown under the bus by his boss, Loretta Lynch. Because she killed any belief in her own impartiality with the tarmac meeting with Bill Clinton, she said she would accept the recommendation of the FBI. What should have happened was a special prosecutor for her emails like we got for Trump. Comey would have been better off public announcing that it was not the role of the FBI and dumped it back on her lap, but I can't entirely blame him given the situation. It doesn't help that taking Hillary down would have required investigating the sitting president as well, since he had an account on her server under a pseudonym.

      My personal favorite complaint was that the FBI was ignoring a DOJ policy of not investigating candidates in a current election. Which is a terribly unethical policy and if it had been followed would have given Trump a great campaign talking about about the ruling class in the USA, and lowered the opinion of the FBI even further when it came out.

      --
      "Pulling together is the aim of despotism and tyranny! Free men pull in all sorts of directions" -- Havelock Vetinari
    17. Re: Seek help for emotional stress you will fact by judoguy · · Score: 1

      It's like those people who say Hillary committed a crime (email server) yet all those lawyers and agents at the FBI said otherwise.

      That's not the job of the agents and lawyers and that's why Comey's actions were so wrong.

      A friend of mine who is a retired FBI agent explained this to me several years ago. After an investigation is ordered, the job of the agents involved is to investigate and then provide their report to a grand jury that subsequently determines whether or not an actual crime has been committed.

      The agents don't decide anything. If the grand jury decides a crime was committed, they pass that along to the prosecutor in the appropriate jurisdiction to determine if a prosecution can reasonably be expected to succeed. Federal prosecutors simply will not proceed if they don't think they will win regardless if a crime was actually committed. They will never willingly take on a case they aren't confident of winning.

      Comey clearly interfered in the process for political reasons. Twice. If the standard process had been followed and had the grand jury determined that no crime had been committed, it would have ended there. Legally and according to the constitution. The only reason for the Obama administration to get involved twice was the fear of an unfavorable grand jury decision.

      --
      Peace is easy to achieve, just surrender. Liberty is much harder get/keep.
    18. Re: Seek help for emotional stress you will fact by bigdavex · · Score: 1

      What they did with Trump is so far removed from lawful investigations that with no immediate indictment, it is clear it was a travesty of justice.

      The Mueller investigation was signed off on by deputy AG Rod Rosenstein, who is a Trump appointee. Mueller had almost nothing to say publicly during the whole investigation. Mueller didn't indict the president. Mueller didn't even interview Trump in person. What exactly are you asserting is unlawful?

      --
      -Dave
    19. Re: Seek help for emotional stress you will fact by DamnOregonian · · Score: 1

      I figured you'd appreciate the distinction between evidence and proof.

      I'm not even arguing that she didn't go seriously afoul of the statute in its strictest interpretation.
      But evidence of a crime is not a crime. If it were, Trump would be strung up at the gallows. Use your better judgement. Quit being a fucking shill.
      You are transparently applying standards to one side that you wouldn't apply to the other. It's sickening.

    20. Re: Seek help for emotional stress you will fact by HornWumpus · · Score: 0

      Yes. Lynch was a political hack and liar.

      That is the point and why the ORDER to remove the 'gross negligence' language was so important. It's a smoking gun, think about how you would react if the shoe was on the other foot. What if Barr had ordered the prosecutors and investigators to change their report to remove language that directly matched the statute? Clinton never got her independent prosecution, that's still coming.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    21. Re: Seek help for emotional stress you will fact by DamnOregonian · · Score: 1

      Argh. There's no limit to your fucking ignorance.

      A CEO has full authority to fire a secretary.
      However, if he fires her because she made a sexual harassment charge against him, he has run afoul of the law.
      This is of course hard to prove, because it require proving intent.
      Most CEOs aren't stupid enough to clearly state their intent- as Trump did.

      Obstruction of Justice is a matter of intent.
      He had full authority to fire Comey. Comey wouldn't deny that, because unlike you, he's neither ignorant or dishonest. Perhaps unwise, but that's somewhat understandable given the complexity of the situation.
      Where the sitting President can run afoul of the law, is to fire someone he has the authority to fire- to *Obstruct Justice*

    22. Re: Seek help for emotional stress you will fact by DamnOregonian · · Score: 1

      You are correct that the law didn't specifically require mens rea.
      However, you taking that thread and running with it all the way to prosecutorial misconduct is ridiculous.
      I once ran afoul of the law when I was 17.
      I was allowed to agree to stipulations in lieu of a criminal conviction, because the prosecutor knew it would be difficult to win the case lacking mens rea.
      All the FBI did was acknowledge the difficulty of securing a criminal conviction in this instance without mens rea.

      You're letting your partisanship cloud your better judgement.

    23. Re: Seek help for emotional stress you will fact by Shotgun · · Score: 0

      The whole investigation. Tell us this. What was Paragraph One? What was the piece of evidence that indicated a crime had occurred?

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
    24. Re: Seek help for emotional stress you will fact by bigdavex · · Score: 1

      I feel like you're trying to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. This is the whole authorization. Some people were indicted, other not, I believe on the basis of evidence. What's the gain from disparaging Mueller?

      By virtue of the authority vested in me as Acting Attorney General, including 28 U.S.C.
      ÂÂ 509, 510, and 515, in order to discharge my responsibility to provide supervision and management of the Department of Justice, and to ensure a full and thorough investigation of the Russian govemment's efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election, I hereby order as
      follows:
      (a) Robert S. Mueller III is appointed t() serve as Specia] Counsel for the United States
      Department of Justice.
      (b) The Special Counsel is authorized to conduct the investigation confinned by then-FBI
      Director James 8. Corney in testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on
      Intelligence on March 20, 2017, including:
      (i) any links and/or coordination bet ween the Russian government and individuals
      associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump; and
      (ii) any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation; and
      (iii) any other matters within the scope of 28 C.F.R. Â 600.4(a).
      (c) If the Special Counsel believes it is necessary and appropriate, the Special Counsel is authorized to prosecute federal crimes arising from the investigation of these matters.
      (d) Sections 600.4 through 600. l 0 of Title 28 of the Code of Federal Regulations are applicable to the Special Counsel.

      --
      -Dave
  19. Missing presumed crying in a corner by cyber-vandal · · Score: 0

    One devastated homophobic slur-using Anonymous Coward.

    1. Re:Missing presumed crying in a corner by Cmdln+Daco · · Score: 1

      His mom shut him down in the cellar with a big bucket of Rit and a pile of her dainties. He's going to Dye in prison.

  20. Re:Trump's campaign manager and personal lawyer... by nine-times · · Score: 0

    Also, Trump's campaign manager, son, and son-in-law met with an agent of the Russian government for the purpose of coordinating campaign assistance. I can believe that there isn't enough evidence of a specific crime to charge them with anything, but it's still collusion and it should still be an enormous scandal.

  21. Russia investigation now becomes OOJ by guacamole · · Score: 1, Troll

    After two and a half years of liberal russophobia and accusations of treason, we arrived to this? Did anyone actually with at least half a brain believe this was going to end somewhat different? Anyways, it's hard to believe that Congress and the corporate news media will leave the President alone after this. So watch the news echo chamber closely over the next few days as Russia investigation now morphs into "obstruction of justice" and "campaign finance" investigation.

    1. Re:Russia investigation now becomes OOJ by Freischutz · · Score: 2

      After two and a half years of liberal russophobia and accusations of treason, we arrived to this? Did anyone actually with at least half a brain believe this was going to end somewhat different? Anyways, it's hard to believe that Congress and the corporate news media will leave the President alone after this. So watch the news echo chamber closely over the next few days as Russia investigation now morphs into "obstruction of justice" and "campaign finance" investigation.

      Well, Steve Bannon did say at the beginning that Trump was too stupid to collude with his own campaign so him colluding with Russia was a ridiculous idea since that would exceed his extremely limited mental capabilities.

    2. Re:Russia investigation now becomes OOJ by h33t+l4x0r · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty satisfied with the outcome, we got a lot of real bad hombres off the street. Anyway, Nancy Pelosi already said she wouldn't go for impeachment so I'm not sure if finding Trump collusion would have even mattered.

    3. Re:Russia investigation now becomes OOJ by kenh · · Score: 1

      Well, Steve Bannon did say at the beginning that Trump was too stupid to collude with his own campaign so him colluding with Russia was a ridiculous idea since that would exceed his extremely limited mental capabilities.

      And countless Democrats would likely agree with that assessment, and STILL insisted Trump colluded with the Russians.

      --
      Ken
    4. Re:Russia investigation now becomes OOJ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, Steve Bannon did say at the beginning that Trump was too stupid to collude with his own campaign so him colluding with Russia was a ridiculous idea since that would exceed his extremely limited mental capabilities.

      And countless Democrats would likely agree with that assessment, and STILL insisted Trump colluded with the Russians.

      He did, he just didn't get caught. But more interestingly, you do realise that you just basically admitting that Trump is too too stupid to collude with his own campaign?

    5. Re:Russia investigation now becomes OOJ by Highdude702 · · Score: 1

      Yes somehow Trump is an evil genius and a blabbering retard. I really don't understand how the liberals can stand up, you would think they would be dizzy with how much their heads spin around these things.

    6. Re:Russia investigation now becomes OOJ by Highdude702 · · Score: 1

      You just admitted to trump being an evil genius. So.. There's that..

  22. Everyone's a loser by istartedi · · Score: 4, Insightful

    From Barr's summary: "The Special Counsel states that 'while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him'"

    Now picture Homer Simpson watching that soccer game: "A tie? Everyone's a loser".

    --
    For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
    1. Re:Everyone's a loser by Tailhook · · Score: 1, Informative

      this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him

      Subsequently it also says the decision of whether to pursue obstruction is, therefore, left to the AG and the AG has declined.

      It's over. Accept it.

      --
      Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
    2. Re:Everyone's a loser by Jarwulf · · Score: 1

      From Barr's summary: "The Special Counsel states that 'while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him'"

      Now picture Homer Simpson watching that soccer game: "A tie? Everyone's a loser".

      Thats not a tie thats sour grapes from Mueller. If a court finds no evidence that you murdered someone they don't get to sentence you to half a prison term because they personally hate you and no evidence isn't definitive proof of innocence.

    3. Re:Everyone's a loser by bogaboga · · Score: 2

      From Barr's summary: "The Special Counsel states that 'while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him'"

      Now picture Homer Simpson watching that soccer game: "A tie? Everyone's a loser".

      Just like when court concludes one's not guilty.

      It doesn't mean the person under trial is innocent.

      It just means that the evidence submitted wasn't enough to convict. The fella is then "let off the hook."

    4. Re:Everyone's a loser by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    5. Re: Everyone's a loser by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It will be accepted but things won't be the same. And the people pulling the strings of the operatives behind the whole mess shouldn't get comfortable.

    6. Re:Everyone's a loser by Kohath · · Score: 1

      Now picture Homer Simpson watching that soccer game: "A tie? Everyone's a loser".

      You will be surprised when Trump declares complete victory then.

    7. Re:Everyone's a loser by istartedi · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Your response is interesting to me, because when I made this comment on reddit, they assumed I was pro-Trump and downvoted accordingly.

      As somebody who isn't particularly fond of the president, but also not fond of the condescending attitudes from the Democrats, I may stand in an unusual position here--destined to be taken the wrong way by the vast majority who appear to be more polarized.

      But surely, SURELY you must be rooting hard for one team or the other? No, and stop calling me Shirley.

      --
      For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
    8. Re:Everyone's a loser by The+Rizz · · Score: 2

      Now picture Homer Simpson watching that soccer game: "A tie? Everyone's a loser".

      You will be surprised when Trump declares complete victory then.

      I don't think anyone will be surprised when he does.

    9. Re: Everyone's a loser by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you were on trial or being investigated for murder and got off you would also consider it a victory. How is it not?

    10. Re:Everyone's a loser by Tailhook · · Score: 1

      Yeah, keep knocking back MSNBC kool-aid.

      --
      Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
    11. Re:Everyone's a loser by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      You will be surprised when Trump declares complete victory then.

      Not really, he would have declared that, even if he were in handcuffs going to jail for life.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    12. Re:Everyone's a loser by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him

      Subsequently it also says the decision of whether to pursue obstruction is, therefore, left to the AG and the AG has declined.

      It's over. Accept it.

      That's not how it works, the other two branches keep the President in check, not the President's own handpicked AG, OBVIOUSLY. So, good luck telling Congress and Judges anything is "over" when they feel the President is in the wrong.

    13. Re:Everyone's a loser by Kohath · · Score: 1

      Not really, he would have declared that, even if he were in handcuffs going to jail for life.

      But instead, he'll be on TV giving speeches about how the whole Russian collusion story was a total lie, and telling everyone not to listen to anything those people say about anything, because they are liars.

    14. Re:Everyone's a loser by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      From Barr's summary: "The Special Counsel states that 'while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him'"

      Now picture Homer Simpson watching that soccer game: "A tie? Everyone's a loser".

      Thats not a tie thats sour grapes from Mueller. If a court finds no evidence that you murdered someone they don't get to sentence you to half a prison term because they personally hate you and no evidence isn't definitive proof of innocence.

      Sentenced to half a term because everybody hates you, AKA impeachment.

    15. Re:Everyone's a loser by Cmdln+Daco · · Score: 1

      The Democrats in the House have the opportunity to continue to kick and screech and sputter, and lose 2020 as a result. If Nancy can't manage to contain them, that's the deal.

    16. Re:Everyone's a loser by Cmdln+Daco · · Score: 1

      Oh, god, how much we can hope the House goes down the impeachment path. I can't think of a better way for them to get shitcanned by the voting public in 2020.

    17. Re:Everyone's a loser by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seems to be playing out similar to the Starr Report. Note that the impeachment proceedings happened in the second term.

    18. Re: Everyone's a loser by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Being tried for murder is the loss, it says there was sufficient evidence of guilt that an AG thought it worth tax payer money to put you on trial. It would be like failing big time at work but not being fired over it.

    19. Re:Everyone's a loser by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And he would be right.

    20. Re:Everyone's a loser by Tailhook · · Score: 1

      That's not how it works

      That is actually how it works. Neither Congress nor any judges are empowered to indict. The buck stops with Trumps new AG and the AG has already decided obstruction is off the table. There are no outstanding sealed indictments. It's over.

      Congress can try to impeach, although the question of "for what?" is now an issue...

      I encourage them to try. Give Trump another huge win.

      --
      Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
    21. Re:Everyone's a loser by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The voting public that gave even HILLARY 3 million more votes? Lol. Trump's going to HANG from his FAGGOT NECK, don't worry. No winning in federal prison, sorry Trump traitors.

    22. Re:Everyone's a loser by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And yet, prosecutors laugh last. Trump dies in prison for his hundreds of other crimes either way.

    23. Re:Everyone's a loser by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > It doesn't mean the person under trial is innocent.

      It pretty much does as far as law is concerned. Innocent until proven guilty thing. Your opinion about him being guilty doesn't make him guilty.

    24. Re:Everyone's a loser by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      From Barr's summary: "The Special Counsel states that 'while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him'"

      Now picture Homer Simpson watching that soccer game: "A tie? Everyone's a loser".

      I am from China, a country which you Western Free Souls often deride as Dictatorial.

      You guys are from the United States of America, a supposed Beacon of Democracy, and your homeland is supposed to be the Land of the Free, Home of the Brave

      As the Trump vs. Mueller saga dragged on, as dirt and craps were heaved and thrown at every each direction, I, and over a billion of my pitiful, human-right-less country folks eyeballed all of it, never a second missed.

      It was (and still is) a messy affair, but nevertheless, it was interesting, and eye-opening.

      You guys have taught us more than you bargained for, regarding what Democracy truly means.

      For that, I, and over a billion of my pitiful, human-right-less country folks, are forever grateful for a lesson extremely well taught !

      Allow me to bid you adieu.

    25. Re:Everyone's a loser by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's an awful way to think about it. Under that model, anyone who is wrongfully accused of anything is "maybe guilty" forever.
      Not guilty means not guilty. An acquittal based on insufficient evidence can be appealed, but until then, and until a guilty verdict is given, it's important to consider people as innocent.

    26. Re:Everyone's a loser by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Old news. Everyone was a loser the moment Trump was elected.

    27. Re: Everyone's a loser by Highdude702 · · Score: 1

      So like a union?

    28. Re:Everyone's a loser by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      Shirley,

      You're not alone. As a life long conservative, Trump was the first republican presidential candidate I didn't vote for in forty years of voting. I too was waiting for the results of the investigation. Had there been a stained dress, body in the Chappaquiddick, etc., I would have jumped on the bandwagon to string him up. It's not there, and so while I wish the right would put up other candidates in 2020, he will likely get my vote even though he's an ass.

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    29. Re:Everyone's a loser by Cmdln+Daco · · Score: 1

      Nobody cares that 3 million illegal aliens in New York and California voted for Hillary.

  23. Report actually goes beyond a lack of collusion by Crashmarik · · Score: 5, Informative

    The report actually goes beyond a lack of collusion. it did not find that Trump's campaign or affiliates conspired or coordinated with the Russian government "despite multiple offers from Russian-affiliated individuals to assist the Trump campaign." Implication is that Russia offered but was turned away.

    Also specifically states that the decision not to seek indictments was done "without regard to" the constitutional considerations that surround the indictment and criminal prosecution of a sitting President.

    1. Re:Report actually goes beyond a lack of collusion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The report actually goes beyond...

      you do not know what the report says, quit making conclusions you cannot draw. until the entire report is released and put into public record, STOP with your fucking nonsense.

      you only need to go so far as to look at that one debate where trump essentially asked the russians to hack his opponent, and the fact that the russians delivered on that, to find conspiracy.

      you only have to go so far as to look at the persons he's worked with and associated with during and after the campaign to find conspiracy and treason.

      you only have to go so far as to look at his profiting from the office of president via hotels and resorts (etc) to find unconstitutional emoluments.

      all three of those things are fucking illegal, any of those (or countless others) should put the bastard in jail for basically the rest (due to his age) of his life.

    2. Re:Report actually goes beyond a lack of collusion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is pretty clear Trump was joking when he asked the Russians to find the missing emails.

    3. Re:Report actually goes beyond a lack of collusion by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 0

      If only the Clinton campaign and the DNC were so ethical. They did, after all, pay Fusion GPS to hire British agent Christopher Steele to work with the Russians to come up with the fake dossier in the first place, as justification for lying to the FISA courts to get inside information on the Trump campaign. If that's not conspiracy and collusion with foreign Governments, I don't know what is...

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    4. Re:Report actually goes beyond a lack of collusion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Unless you somehow have access to Mueller's report, you cannot tell us the specifics of what it does or does not find.

      What you are responding to is Attorney General Barr's summary. Given that Barr is a member of the Republican Party, a Trump Appointee and someone who has been notably critical of Mueller's investigation, can he really be trusted to write an unbiased summary?

      Release the actual report and we will see the specifics.

    5. Re:Report actually goes beyond a lack of collusion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, it isn't. Also he wasn't joking when he backed Putin on WMD attacks, meddling in general, or removing the Magnitsky sanctions against Russia. Trump is a traitor.

    6. Re:Report actually goes beyond a lack of collusion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      If only the Clinton campaign and the DNC were so ethical. They did, after all, pay Fusion GPS to hire British agent Christopher Steele to work with the Russians to come up with the fake dossier in the first place, as justification for lying to the FISA courts to get inside information on the Trump campaign. If that's not conspiracy and collusion with foreign Governments, I don't know what is...

      Christopher Steele is well known and respected by US IC. There was never any evidence of Steele acting in bad faith despite considerable efforts to illicit such.

      Apparently you are one of those special idiots who believe invoking talking points and making baseless characterizations magically provides credence to your words when in fact all it does is show how much of a partisan hack you are.

      What makes matters considerably worse for you is what you are saying is provably wrong. Details of the FISA warrant at issue was released:
      https://vault.fbi.gov/d1-relea...

      There is no excuse for continuing to cling to notion Steele dossier had shit all to do with the FISA warrants when it provably did not. Continuing to promulgate bullshit talking points when it is clearly and provably false is a reflection of your own ignorance and considerable internal capacity to fool yourself into believing what you are predisposed to want to believe.

    7. Re:Report actually goes beyond a lack of collusion by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      Christopher Steele is well known and respected by US IC.

      So what you're saying is....Steele is a professional liar and propagandist. And shouldn't be trusted if he said water was wet.

      There was never any evidence of Steele acting in bad faith despite considerable efforts to illicit such.

      Deflection. The point is Hillary would make the original Swiftboaters jealous in her epic trolling of the public. Projecting her attempts to work with foreign intelligence agents on swinging an election, onto her opponent. But you knew that already.

    8. Re:Report actually goes beyond a lack of collusion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      See page 16 of your own link. It specifically address the Steele Dossier and Steele as credible sources for the FISA warrant. As IBD writes:

      But now, with the application documents in hand, even the Washington Post admits that the dossier played "a prominent role" in the wiretap request. And we know that the FBI had corroborated none of the dossier claims before filing its application.

      It seems you just provided the source to confirm LR's contention. You bring shame to all ACs with your ignorance.

      And if you don't believe IBD, perhaps NPR will work?

    9. Re:Report actually goes beyond a lack of collusion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You forgot to say, "What about Clinton, ...". It's much easier to determine what-about-ism when you use the proper phrasing.

      Seriously, this is the second post I've seen where you talk about how bad Clinton is. Neither Clinton is in office right now, and they haven't been for years. We currently have somebody in office that has some issues, some of them explored and some that will not be because his party has been in power for a long time and he's already put a lot of judges into power that favor him. Mueller has found the gun, the bullets, and the dead bodies, but not the _smoking_ gun in Trumps hand. Without it, he knows he has no chance. You also have to remember that he and the other investigators have voted Republican for decades. They are not going to do anything to hurt the party unless it makes them look bad if they don't. No will argue he didn't do a lot of work, or that he didn't prosecute some people. But he has not gone after anyone in power who could later hurt him. Mission Accomplished

    10. Re:Report actually goes beyond a lack of collusion by quantaman · · Score: 2

      The report actually goes beyond a lack of collusion. it did not find that Trump's campaign or affiliates conspired or coordinated with the Russian government "despite multiple offers from Russian-affiliated individuals to assist the Trump campaign." Implication is that Russia offered but was turned away.

      If all the offers of help were turned down then how did George Papadopoulos know that Russia had stolen DNC emails before Wikileaks had dumped them?

      If everyone from Trump's campaign turned away Russian offers of help then how do you describe Carter Pager running around Russia trying to make contacts?

      And if no one from Trump's campaign coordinated with the Russian government then why was his campaign chair sending internal polling data to Ukrainian oligarchs with connections to Russian intelligence?

      Barr's summary isn't even consistent with the publicly known aspects of Mueller's investigation. I don't think Barr's giving a very reliable summary.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    11. Re:Report actually goes beyond a lack of collusion by Crashmarik · · Score: 1

      If all the offers of help were turned down then how did George Papadopoulos know that Russia had stolen DNC emails before Wikileaks had dumped them?

      Making an offer conveys information.

      If everyone from Trump's campaign turned away Russian offers of help then how do you describe Carter Pager running around Russia trying to make contacts?

      His business is being an expert on Russia

      And if no one from Trump's campaign coordinated with the Russian government then why was his campaign chair sending internal polling data to Ukrainian oligarchs with connections to Russian intelligence?

      Well one the Ukraine isn't Russia, two I notice you left out the name "Paul Manafort", obvious conclusion he wanted to raise his stature with future clients.

      But seeing as you think sharing polling data is collusion, let me show you what real foreign collusion

      "Ukrainian efforts to sabotage Trump backfire
      https://www.politico.com/story..."

    12. Re:Report actually goes beyond a lack of collusion by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, because surely, 20+ lawyers, including many who are democrats, along with Mueller wouldn't say a word if Barr was lying about his report.

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
  24. Nothingburger by Jarwulf · · Score: 1, Funny

    Now its time to release the report publicly so Dems can nitpick over every phrase and drag this out until the end of Trumps term

    1. Re:Nothingburger by Cmdln+Daco · · Score: 1

      Until the end of Trump's second term.

      I'm not sure Pence will get to carry on for another four-eight after that, though.

  25. Re:NO RUSSIAN COLLUSION by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not only the document does NOT state this, at all, the conclusions contained in it were produced by the AG.

    Barr goes out of his way to obfuscate this, but the underlying result is still "look, we don't know".

  26. Mueller Report further "evidence" of conspiracy by drnb · · Score: 0, Troll

    Left-wing conspiracy kooks on suicide watch!

    No, no, no. The report written by Republican Mueller is merely further evidence of a conspiracy to protect Trump. Given the fact that Trump is guilty of everything, anything contradicting this fact is obviously disinformation and coverup by Mueller and other friends of Trump spread throughout the FBI and the DOJ, aka Trumplandia.


    ;-)

    1. Re:Mueller Report further "evidence" of conspiracy by drnb · · Score: 0

      The preceding is my contribution to suicide prevention. Given the left-wing a thread of hope to cling to. ;-)

  27. America got a taste of its own "soup" by bogaboga · · Score: 1, Insightful

    It does, however, reiterate that there was clear Russian interference in America's 2016 election:

    Just like America's CIA and various other [3] letter agencies have done to legitimately elected governments over the decades.

    Nothing to see here...move on.

    1. Re:America got a taste of its own "soup" by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 0

      Just because our concern may seem hypocritical doesn't mean it's an insignificant matter. It's still very much something that needs to be dealt with.

      --
      Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
    2. Re:America got a taste of its own "soup" by nine-times · · Score: 1

      "Sure, I killed my wife. Just like Jeffrey Dahmer has killed a lot of people. Nothing to see here... move on."

    3. Re: America got a taste of its own "soup" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And we would expect those other countries to conduct their own investigations and conclude their own remedies, if required, in response to such interference. Your point?

    4. Re:America got a taste of its own "soup" by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      Nonsense. Russian "interference" is a bullshit excuse made by the losers. Both sides were already claiming it before November.

      As far as any real interference, it was all done domestically, and everybody went after exactly the wrong target. And the guilty Party completely got away with it. In fact, to even bring it up will now start the onslaught. Watch...

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    5. Re:America got a taste of its own "soup" by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      You're assuming that the Russians actually interfered. Sorry, we did it to ourselves. It doesn't even compare to watch the CIA does in Central/South America, Africa, middle east, Asia.... They shoot people in those places. Our system suffers nothing even resembling such forceful coercion.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    6. Re:America got a taste of its own "soup" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It does, however, reiterate that there was clear Russian interference in America's 2016 election:

      Just like America's CIA and various other [3] letter agencies have done to legitimately elected governments over the decades.

      Nothing to see here...move on.

      So? I have seen the Russian propaganda spread on social media. Those people who fell for it and believed it without even using any critical thinking skills at all shows me that many many Americans are too irresponsible to live in a democracy.

    7. Re:America got a taste of its own "soup" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Basically, we have a leader elected in a sham election. It's almost like people don't comprehend this.

      But hey, Uncle Vlad vehemently denies any meddling. Uncle Vlad never lies at all. Right Crimea?

    8. Re:America got a taste of its own "soup" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      US: Direct overthrow of elected foreign leaders through funded coups, violent protests, and outright assassination. Dems: crickets.

      Russia: $4700 in Facebook ads. Dems: REEEEEEEEEEE!!!! MUH DEMOCRACY!!

  28. This is news for nerds?? by toonces33 · · Score: 1, Insightful

    There are plenty of other places people can go to argue about this kind of stuff.

    1. Re:This is news for nerds?? by thegarbz · · Score: 2

      Yes. Political nerds are a kind of nerd too. The story has been up for only a short time and it has over 100 posts so it's clearly the thing a large portion of this site is interested in.

      If this is unexpected for you maybe you should find another site to suit your more particular tastes.

    2. Re:This is news for nerds?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes. Political nerds are a kind of nerd too.

      The shitty kind...

    3. Re:This is news for nerds?? by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      The shitty kind...

      What's that make you given you spend your time frequenting a site where "shitty" topics are the most discussed?

  29. Yes and no by rsilvergun · · Score: 1, Insightful

    the report didn't conclude anything, positive or negative, in regards to collusion. For any other president that would be the end of it.

    Trump's supporters seem willing to excuse anything in exchange for what he gives them. I don't think it's going to turn out to be worth it, but to be blunt a lot of the folks voting for him are older and, well, they'll be dead before the problems he's causing come home to roost. Doesn't help that the right wing of the Democratic party has pretty much abandoned working class America.

    Long run I'm hoping this turns out to be a good thing. The right wing Dems were counting on this to shut Trump down so they could put Biden or Beto in office. The effect would have been the same as Trump without the pointless trade wars. It'll be harder to do that now. Hopefully that means we get a populist like Bernie or Warren who will make actual, positive changes.

    It's going to be interesting if we get another 4 years of Trump. He'll invade Venezuela once he's not worried about reelection. Also he'll overturn Roe v. Wade for the same reason. Both of those are things the extreme right want but 70% of Americans don't (could be 90% for invading Venezuela, the Trumpers I know want to spend that money securing the borders here). Still, they got away with it with Iraq. Bush jr has a positive approval rating...

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:Yes and no by HornWumpus · · Score: 0

      If the Ds pivot left, it's 4 more years for sure.

      Hillary cut off the oxygen/money to nationally electable Ds for so long, they've basically got nobody.

      Why would anybody invade Venezuela? It's a great 'living example'. They will be left to stew in their stupidity, until the Venezuelans hang their own problems from lampposts. What would be gained? It would just make the mess our problem.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    2. Re:Yes and no by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      The right wing Dems were counting on this to shut Trump down so they could put Biden or Beto in office. The effect would have been the same as Trump without the pointless trade wars. It'll be harder to do that now. Hopefully that means we get a populist like Bernie or Warren who will make actual, positive changes.

      Interesting analysis.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    3. Re:Yes and no by Cmdln+Daco · · Score: 1

      The Democrats in the house will rail on about this long enough to really stink up their chances of winning a president in 2020. Nancy probably won't be capable of shutting them up. It will be ironic, because Trump Derangement Syndrome is going to be a major factor in Trump getting re-elected.

    4. Re:Yes and no by bensafrickingenius · · Score: 1

      You think presidents get to overturn supreme court decisions? Good grief.

      --
      I am not left-handed, either!
    5. Re:Yes and no by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The GOP didn't get away with the invasion of Iraq. They paid for it in 2012.

      I don't know what the "right wing" of the democrat party even is.

      Is that like Hillary? Or Biden? Or what? Hillary the right winger?

    6. Re:Yes and no by walllaby · · Score: 1

      Hopefully that means we get a populist like Bernie or Warren who will make actual, positive changes.

      We already have a populist for a president. In a representative democracy, it’s simply a means to an end. “Positive change” is simply a matter of perspective; if you voted for Trump in 2016, you probably felt the same way.

      He'll invade Venezuela once he's not worried about reelection. Also he'll overturn Roe v. Wade for the same reason.

      I severely doubt either of those things will happen. Trump and his pachyderms couldn’t overturn Obamacare with a full house and senate; they’re definitely not going to overturn a Supreme Court ruling. We haven’t invaded a country outside the Middle East in 20 years, and I don’t think it’s going to happen now. Venezuela is imploding well enough with its reliance on a depreciating natural resource and is being helped along with the financial strain being placed upon it by the US and its cohorts.

  30. Reminder by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I would like to remind everyone that according to trump himself, neither Mueller, NOR the report has any credibility whatsoever.

  31. The Left Tried to Overturn the 2016 election by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Mueller investigation is complete and this is a simple fact that will never go away: not one single American was charged, indicted or convicted for conspiring with Russia to influence the 2016 election - not even a low-level volunteer. The number is zero.
    -Glenn Greenwald

  32. Difference between CNN & Fox News by rsilvergun · · Score: 0
    CNN.com's headline right now read "MUELLER DID NOT FIND TRUMP CONSPIRED WITH RUSSIA" and in smaller letters:

    'While this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him,' the special counsel is quoted as saying

    If this were Fox News those two would be flipped. This is why the Republicans win. They successfully control the message.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:Difference between CNN & Fox News by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Neither headline contradicts each other. This is why Republicans win - no one can comprehend text anymore.

    2. Re:Difference between CNN & Fox News by 110010001000 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Trump (not the Republicans) win because the Democrats ignored the "little people" on their quest for "progression". You know, the "little people" that work and pay taxes and wonder what the hell is it in for them? The Democrats don't even pay them lip service anymore. And no, I'm not a Republican or a Trump fan. But Hillary was a "progressive" idiot. And her husband was a shyster who should be selling used cars somewhere.

    3. Re:Difference between CNN & Fox News by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hell, Trump is now giving statements about how the report exonerates him whilst Barr's letter says the exact opposite.

    4. Re:Difference between CNN & Fox News by 110010001000 · · Score: 0

      The report DOES essentially exonerate him, no matter what spin people try to put on it. It is like asking "how many times do you beat your wife?" Really, time to grow up and find a honest reason to get elected than legal tricks.

    5. Re:Difference between CNN & Fox News by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I does not. We do not know what the report says at all, in fact.

      "While this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him," special counsel Robert Mueller says, as quoted in Barr's summary. This means that Mueller provided evidence of possible crimes, but the AG decided not to prosecute them.

    6. Re:Difference between CNN & Fox News by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Prosecutors _never_ exonerate. There are no votes in exonerations.

      That line was just a parting shot from Mueller.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    7. Re:Difference between CNN & Fox News by phantomfive · · Score: 1
      Here is the headline that was on Fox News:

      "Probe finds no proof of Trump campaign collusion with Russia, no conclusion on obstruction: Barr letter"

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    8. Re:Difference between CNN & Fox News by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That line did not come from Mueller, you moron. That's the AGs stance based on Mueller's findings.

      I really want to see the full report - my gut tells me it will be way more damning than what Barr is making it to be here.

    9. Re:Difference between CNN & Fox News by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      That's the AG quoting Mueller directly, you illiterate twat.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    10. Re: Difference between CNN & Fox News by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Zero. I beat my wife zero times.
      I'll say that under oath. Will Trump testify unset oath? Nope, he refused. Lawyered up. The only smart thing he did in office.

    11. Re:Difference between CNN & Fox News by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Trump has not been found innocent of any charge, including collusion which isn't even a charge. The fact is Trump dies in prison either way, for his many hundreds of crimes. There's nothing Barr can do about it once he's gone.

      Trump dies in prison, the system works.

    12. Re:Difference between CNN & Fox News by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      Right, the AG quoted Mueller as Mueller took a lazy parting shot with that language. Regardless, it doesn't matter. It's not indictable. There's never going to be an obstruction case (which requires intent, in connection with a crime) when there's no underlying crime in the first place.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    13. Re:Difference between CNN & Fox News by Freischutz · · Score: 1

      Trump (not the Republicans) win because the Democrats ignored the "little people" on their quest for "progression". You know, the "little people" that work and pay taxes and wonder what the hell is it in for them? The Democrats don't even pay them lip service anymore. And no, I'm not a Republican or a Trump fan. But Hillary was a "progressive" idiot. And her husband was a shyster who should be selling used cars somewhere.

      Yeah, and Trump is doing sooooooo much to help the little people.

    14. Re:Difference between CNN & Fox News by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You haven't been paying attention have you?

    15. Re:Difference between CNN & Fox News by fustakrakich · · Score: 0

      there's no underlying crime in the first place.

      Yeah there is. There's money laundering, tax evasion, extortion, all sorts of cool stuff. Not to worry, the accusers are just as guilty, so we have... *The Dance*

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    16. Re:Difference between CNN & Fox News by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      Yeah there is. There's money laundering, tax evasion, extortion, all sorts of cool stuff.

      Which of those things are you saying that Trump did, and that Mueller found but was prevented by the Russians from mentioning, even though he had a team of Trump-hostile attorneys working with him? Please be specific. And mention which action, in advance of a proceeding, Trump took to obstruct that proceeding? Because that's the standard.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    17. Re:Difference between CNN & Fox News by fustakrakich · · Score: 0

      Sorry, they *burned the tapes*. That's the way the cookie crumbles...

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    18. Re:Difference between CNN & Fox News by Highdude702 · · Score: 1

      He just doesn't belong to the "Little people" group so he absolutely gives 0 fucks, just like the rest of the elitist democrats. I, for one. Part of the "Little people" group, have actually been doing quite good these last 2 years.

    19. Re:Difference between CNN & Fox News by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh dear! Here come the shills, on the moderation warpath! You couldn't be more obvious!

  33. Re:Trump's campaign manager and personal lawyer... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If so Hillary did far worse with the Uranium 1 deal but no one in the DoJ cares.

  34. Re:Trump's campaign manager and personal lawyer... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Actually, Manafort and Cohen both been convicted of cheating on their taxes in cases unconnected to Trump and his campaign.

    Cohen was convicted of making an excessive contribution to the Trump campaign, "for the principle purpose of influencing the election," at the request of Individual 1.

  35. Re: Show me the man and I’ll find you the cr by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you can't prove the guilt of a man beyond reasonable doubt, we must presume him to be innocent of the alleged crime.

    Bullshit. The legal system may find him "not guilty" (which is distinctly different than innocent) but "we" aren't personally bound to such a standard. Best example I can think of to which most people would agree is OJ Simpson. The legal system might have found him not guilty but I'm pretty sure you won't find a whole ton of people presuming OJ to be innocent.

  36. Re:Trump's campaign manager and personal lawyer... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    > Trump encouraged Russian attacks on America on TV.
    Hillary's famous email server that was run out of the bathroom of someone's private residence. I remember Trump joking that since those emails were seemingly lost. That the entire US government had lost access to the records of Hillary's stint as Secretary of State, and only had what she voluntarily turned over before illegally wiping the server, then perhaps the Russians should release them, since they likely had full copies of everything that had been on that server which our own government did not.
    See, its not just a joke about the insanity of the whole situation, it's a reminder that you don't allow important internal government communication to be run out of the bathroom of someone's home as a way of avoiding internal oversight, because then you throw security out the window and end up in the situation where your enemies have more knowledge about the internal going-ons of your government than you yourselves do.
    How this got turned into a massive conspiracy and fantasy about Trump conspiring with Putin says a lot about the effectiveness of brainwashing by propaganda. Unplug yourself.

  37. Re:Trump's campaign manager and personal lawyer... by bobbied · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Actually, Manafort and Cohen both been convicted of cheating on their taxes in cases unconnected to Trump and his campaign.

    Cohen was convicted of making an excessive contribution to the Trump campaign, "for the principle purpose of influencing the election," at the request of Individual 1.

    No, Cohen ADMITTED to this, he was not tried in court. He entered into a Plea bargain deal, he wasn't convicted in court so nobody had to prove he violated campaign finance law. I know there is little practical difference for Cohen, but there IS a difference here.

    Further, the "Russian Collusion" angel has nothing at all to do with Cohen and the campaign finance charges taken up by the Southern District of NY.

    --
    "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
  38. I dismiss this report... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    After all, the president himself said it was illegal and wrong. So we all don't have to pay attention to it right? I'll bet he's singing a different tune now that the heat is off. Makes you wonder why he was so worried these past 2 years.

  39. Re:This is SlashDot, not HuffPo by 110010001000 · · Score: 2

    The report was delivered as a PDF.

  40. Re: Trump's campaign manager and personal lawyer.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > There is evidence, but someone decided it wasn't enough to convict the president
    treated the same as Clinton. then what is problem?

  41. Re:Trump's campaign manager and personal lawyer... by bobbied · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Also, Trump's campaign manager, son, and son-in-law met with an agent of the Russian government for the purpose of coordinating campaign assistance. I can believe that there isn't enough evidence of a specific crime to charge them with anything, but it's still collusion and it should still be an enormous scandal.

    So.. That's the point here. Mueller clearly investigated this "evidence" and found nothing that showed that there was any behind the scenes coordination between Trump's campaign and Russians. This was Bob Mueller's focus, his mandate, the whole purpose of his efforts. So He didn't find that this meeting was what many have claimed for the last 2 years.

    In short, Mueller doesn't agree. Mueller is saying this meeting wasn't Trump and the Russians coordinating their campaign efforts. The Trump Tower meeting is apparently not evidence of what you've been told.

    --
    "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
  42. Re: Show me the man and I’ll find you the cr by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer.

    This principle is what virtually all legal systems in the Western world are based on.
    Yes, wrongful convictions still happen often enough due to shoddy procedure. We certainly should crack down on that. But the fact that the system doesn't work flawless to begin with does not make it right to wilfully break the principle just because the person in question is an asshat.

  43. Folks will pitch a fit about it by nehumanuscrede · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Team Blue wants the entire report so they can comb through it line by line searching for
    something, ANYTHING they can use to continue to push as much negative ( factual or otherwise )
    information about Trump as they can before the next election cycle.

    ( Personally, this tells me they're desperate and concerned about their chances in 2020. It would
    surprise me NOT to see a leak of the report soon. )

    They could give two shits about justice or doing the right thing.
    They're simply looking for an advantage. If you believe any different, you're naive.

    ( Disclaimer: Team Red pulls the same shit when it's to their advantage as well. )

    I suppose it's karma coming back to bite them in the ass.

    If the Department of Justice decided against bringing charges against Hillary, why would they
    expect / demand anything different this time around ?

    ( Other than because it's Trump ? )

    1. Re:Folks will pitch a fit about it by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      Exactly. Team Blue/Team Red don't care about America. They care about their team. They will do anything to stay in power, include ripping America apart. And Team Red doesn't like Trump either.

    2. Re:Folks will pitch a fit about it by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      Team Blue wants the entire report so they can comb through it line by line searching for something, ANYTHING they can use to continue to push as much negative ( factual or otherwise ) information about

      You mean just like Benghazi?

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    3. Re:Folks will pitch a fit about it by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      It is exactly the same thing. Get the idea? Neither team gives a crap about the truth, just about wanting to "win".

    4. Re:Folks will pitch a fit about it by Patent+Lover · · Score: 1

      Actually the red team likes Trump just fine. They've become the team of Trump.

    5. Re:Folks will pitch a fit about it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      [democrats] could give two shits about justice or doing the right thing.
      They're simply looking for an advantage.

      no shit; calling illegal immigrants "undocumented migrants" wasnt a red-enough flag for you? (trust me, i'm an undocumented bullshit expert)

      Disclaimer: Team Red pulls the same shit when it's to their advantage as well.

      agreed. and this is partly why trump is appealing -- basically both parties lose to him.

    6. Re:Folks will pitch a fit about it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who died here?

    7. Re:Folks will pitch a fit about it by kenh · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Team Blue is demanding the ENTIRE report because they know they can't get the entire report, and when they can't get the ENTIRE report they can call it OBSTRUCTION. According to the Special Counsel law Team Blue passed after watching the Special Investigator Ken Starr drag President Clinton's dirty laundry through the media, they said the report needs to be CONFIDENTIAL and that certain elements can't be made public.

      It's genus - they pass a law that makes it illegal to release the entire report, then demand the entire report be released!

      --
      Ken
    8. Re:Folks will pitch a fit about it by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Personally, this tells me they're desperate and concerned about their chances in 2020

      Non-sequitur. Having dirt on an opponent is a critical strategy whether you're incredibly far in front of the polls or incredibly far behind. By all accounts every red-tie is currently throwing their hat into the ring as a presidential candidate precisely because of Trump's disapproval rating being almost historically high for a sitting president at this time of their first time and they think they have a sure chance of winning.

    9. Re:Folks will pitch a fit about it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Team Blue wants the entire report so they can comb through it line by line searching for something, ANYTHING they can use to continue to push as much negative ( factual or otherwise ) information about

      You mean just like Benghazi?

      Yes.

      Don't hate the players. Hate the game.

    10. Re:Folks will pitch a fit about it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Liberty, Liberty died

    11. Re:Folks will pitch a fit about it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where's the "Drumpf in Federal Prison" moron who's been spamming the forum with his nonsense for a year or more? I miss that guy! Please come back and let us know that you're OK after you've finished crying in the corner and cutting yourself!

    12. Re:Folks will pitch a fit about it by Highdude702 · · Score: 1

      I actually didn't like trump one bit when he was elected. He however did some of the things he said he would(that he could). And with seeing the hysteria of the last 2 years, and seeing the crazy on the left come out. I like him a lot more. He is showing people for their true colors. That helps me figure out who I want to associate with.

    13. Re:Folks will pitch a fit about it by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      Actually the red team likes Trump just fine. They've become the team of Trump.

      There's a big difference between liking the policies of the administration and liking the asshole in the White House. And yes, I'm on the red team. I would be very happy to replace him, but not with Team Snowflake.

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    14. Re:Folks will pitch a fit about it by Topwiz · · Score: 1

      According to the summary, the parts that might get held back relate to laws around the secrecy of grand jury deliberations.

  44. Re: Trump's campaign manager and personal lawyer.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Clearly he was told nothing then or later on. Next time there's a question about the pricy cost of a trump steak look it up

  45. Re:Trump's campaign manager and personal lawyer... by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

    What has Hillary got to do with Uranium One?

    --
    Ezekiel 23:20
  46. Re: Trump's campaign manager and personal lawyer.. by nonBORG · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Probably you are mixing up evidence with proof here.

    Evidence can be (if the case was a murder trial.) you were angry at the person murdered, you made a call to the person in the week before they were murdered and there was an argument that was witnessed between you and them.

    Evidence is far from proof and it does not mean he committed a crime.

    I wondered if I will get modded down for such a factual unbiased post.

    --
    You can't handle the truth! - Because I don't post left all my comments get modded down, bye bye Karma.
  47. Re: Trump's campaign manager and personal lawyer.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    Can you not read? There is evidence, but someone decided it wasn't enough to convict the president. That's an opinion. Or it might be enough. That's another opinion. But the evidence is there and some of us noticed the president do and say things publicly that scream conflict of interest.

    Wow, you're a FUCKING MORON!

    Guess what? Zero evidence is also not enough to convict the president.

    You kinda gave away what your real goal is, evidence be damned: convict the President.

    Why?

    Because he's not Hillary.

    Wow. It's kinda obvious when "progressives" try to preemptively accuse Trump of trying to overturn the results of the upcoming 2020 election, you "progressives" are projecting.

    BECAUSE YOU "PROGRESSIVE" LITTLE SHITS ARE ARE ****STILL**** TRYING TO OVERTURN THE 2016 ELECTION \

    Get this: Hillary LOST.

    GROW

    THE

    FUCK

    UP

    AND

    GET

    THE

    FUCK

    OVER

    IT

  48. Re: Trump's campaign manager and personal lawyer.. by segedunum · · Score: 0, Troll

    There is evidence, but someone decided it wasn't enough to convict the president.

    You keep consoling yourself with that delusion sweetheart.

  49. Perjury on non-campaign stuff by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you purjor yourself while having a conversation about your alleged collusion, chances pretty good you were colluling. At the very least you did something worse than purjor yourself.

    Apparently not since the perjury involved background and non-campaign stuff. The perjury charge is just for pressure on the actually collusion questions and apparently yielded nothing.

  50. What can be released? by bradley13 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    All of it. Seriously, what business do governments have, keeping secrets from the citizens who create them? With very few exceptions, no secrets should be allowed. They are our employees.

    Obviously, there is a problem with most governments...

    --
    Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.
    1. Re:What can be released? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How would you like to have been investigated, and no evidence found, but still be outed?

      Prosecutors do not release any details about people found to have not committed a crime. The why is because you besmirch the persons name.

      Imagine your relative was a serial killer. You have a relationship, go visit etc... You are investigated and found to be not involved. Would you be ok with them stating they investigated you, found no evidence of involvement with the murder but you cheat on your wife. This is similar to what happened to Bill Clinton with the Starr investigation. Starr found no evidence he lied, but reported all the salacious details of his life.

    2. Re:What can be released? by WolfWalker545 · · Score: 1, Informative

      Legally, NOTHING about anyone not indicted can be released. The Democrats know this, they're hoping to muddy the waters by trying to demand something they know they can't have so they can claim "coverup". The REAL crimes remain to be prosecuted - using a dossier procured by a political opponent as the basis for obtaining FISA warrants, falsely certifying to the FISA court that the dossier had been corroborated, collusion with foreign governments in producing the dossier, etc... This is banana republic shit, using the full force of the US government to harass and interfere with a political campaign, including wiretaps of the candidate himself.

    3. Re:What can be released? by kenh · · Score: 1

      The parts of the confidential report the Special Counsel can and can't be released are clearly outlined in the law Democrats passed after the Special Investigator law (the one in effect when Ken Starr dragged Clinton's private business through the media) - but Democrats know that, despite their attempts to feign ignorance of that simple fact.

      --
      Ken
    4. Re:What can be released? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh boy, where do i begin sweet summer child. First of all, they are not your employees (not in practical sense). Try do do a practical test: an employee does what the 'boss' says, yes? Is this the case here?

      You must have slept your entire life through all the 'secret cia missions to overthrow all those nasty annoying assholes in another countries all over the world' and 'banking "elites" exerting influence how society should manage with their money' and 'spying over everyone to suppress any resistance' and 'personal enrichment by government members under pretense of spreading democracy around the world'.

      And the best part is - you are not able to prevent them from changing the system - you don't want to be 'cleaned' on 'grassy knoll'. You know what, don't even bother. You will just get a very bad headache, go back to 'watching the American gladiator' reruns. And do read carefully all those 'carefully selected and tweak worded government reports' - you might learn something new hahaha.

    5. Re:What can be released? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Democrats know this...

      And you think Republicans don't know? How about if they know and intend to not indict anyone, so that the report can't be released? You know, when you take a side, there is always an argument by using the opposite knowledge.

    6. Re:What can be released? by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      If you accept that the government needs to have classified information, than you must also accept that Mueller probably had to access classified in order to do his investigation. And, you must also accept that that can't be released to the general public, but could be to cleared members on both sides in Congress. There are also plenty of privacy laws to consider since many of the people involved/interviewed were not under investigation. You can't legally just publish the whole thing, even if both Trump and Pelosi want it. I'd love to see it all too, but it's unlikely that we'll get more than a redacted report.

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
  51. Re: Trump's campaign manager and personal lawyer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh boy, look out, here come the ad hominem attacks.

    You gonna cry about it too?

  52. Re:Russian Meddling is Protected by U.S. Constitut by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Dude, drugs are bad for you.

  53. All kinds of BS all around by RightwingNutjob · · Score: 4, Informative

    Let's remember why the special counsel was appointed by Rosenstein: Rosenstein signed off on a memo justifying to Trump why Comey should have been fired for his threatrics re: Hillary in the run-up to the 2016 election. This was the stated reason to fire him.

    What came out after Comey was fired was that:
    1. Comey had called up Preibus out of the blue, told him that the Russia-gate stuff being reported in the press about the FBI was nonsense. Preibus then asks if Comey can make a clarifying statement to the press to that effect. Comey says no, AND leaks to the press that he was being pressured by Preibus. Despite having been the one to initiate the conversation and bait Preibus into the ask. Classy.
    2. Comey starts leaking his "memos" to the press via his law professor friend with the explicit and expressed purpose of getting a special counsel appointed to probe his firing. Despite some of those memos technically being classified by virtue of the fact that they described a conversation between Trump and Comey acting in their capacities as POTUS and FBI head, respectively and talking over classified matters (because counter-intelligence?). Classy.
    3. Turns out that a number of people plead guilty and went to jail for far less than what Hillary was being accused of, but Comey pretty much says he quashed it because of political considerations. Classy.

    So now we have the report of the special counsel, who was appointed to probe whether Trump obstructed justice by firing Comey...coming up completely empty on the question of whether a crime even occurred for Trump to have been covering up and absolutely declining to make a decision on whether obstruction occurred. Read that again: the thing he was mandated to investigate...he makes no determination of. Despite failing to find evidence that a crime even occurred.

    But it gets better. Since Mueller declined to make a determination to either incriminate or exonerate Trump...it fell to Attorney General Barr to evaluate the evidence and make the call. Except Barr says he consulted with Rosenstein. The same exact Rosenstein who signed off on the memo to justify firing Comey to begin with. So Rosenstein's coming out of this smelling like a rose too: he appoints the special counsel to investigate whether the justification he wrote for firing Comey was actually part of an act of obstruction of justice...and now at the end he gets to make the decision on whether or not the thing he had his name all over constituted a crime.

    Yeesh.

    Never mind the Pee Dossier, never mind the trickle of less than flattering information about Peter Strzok and Andrew McCabe and Evelyn Farkas and Brennan and Clapper the rest of them trying to tip the scales and leak shit to the press and out-and-out try to bait Trump officials into perjuring themselves. The basic fact is that the assistant AG wrote a memo justifying the firing an FBI head who clearly had it coming to him...then appointing a special counsel to investigate himself...and then declaring himself to have not taken part of a crime. Lovely.

    Kids...if you're reading...this is not what accountable government looks like. In fact, this is what an out-of-control Deep State looks like: all court intrigue and a colossal circle-jerk for the purpose of...what for all the world looks like...generating a smoke screen in the press to divert attention away from wrong-doing by the very people claiming the mantle of Protectors of the Republic(TM).

    1. Re:All kinds of BS all around by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean to tell all those conspiracy crazies talking about how 'president is just a pr stunt' to distract attention away from real rulers is true?
      Tell me it isn't true, please :)

      So, how does the story end? Slow descent into slavery for non-"elites", transformation into 'Brazil like' shithole "country" with army i mean police taking care of 'order', more 'wars' to feed the industrial-war complex and 'vampire bankers' having sex orgies with 'corporate leader geniuses' ?

      Someone will probably make a movie after 1000 years: "the gladiator" : story about the decadent shithole and brave slaves fighting for their lives. Hmm, is it possible that history repeats itself? :)

    2. Re:All kinds of BS all around by DarkOx · · Score: 1

      I just want to say thank for this post. This is probably the most concise, fair minded, description of the entire affair; I have read anyway.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    3. Re:All kinds of BS all around by walllaby · · Score: 1

      Read that again: the thing he was mandated to investigate...he makes no determination of. Despite failing to find evidence that a crime even occurred.

      I realize it is frustrating to see many bundles of government funds being used to investigate a president on a political basis and then have nothing definitive. But I think we need to entertain the idea that sometimes results can be inconclusive, and that such a result is vastly preferable to an indictment or exoneration simply based on the public wanting to see blood.

      Our justice system does work the way it’s supposed to (most of the time), even if it’s not always satisfying for the audience.

  54. Re:Trump's campaign manager and personal lawyer... by jythie · · Score: 0, Troll

    Nothing, but people have heard it so many times in the right wing echo chamber that it is taken as a given.

  55. Re: You are dumb by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Aside from the fact that you are a babbling Marxist clown, I will address only 2 specifics you called out because he rest of your spew is just opinionated drivel posing as points.

    1) why the fuck would anyone invade Venezuela? Sheer madness that only a war mongering Marxist would think of. Trump has been the most pacifist and least militarily aggressive president since Ford. You are dumb.

    2) Do you know NOTHING about our system of government? Trump CANNOT simply turn over Roe v. Wade and I doubt he wants to. He is not and never was a social conservative and it is the USSC with that power NOT POTUS. As an aside, RvW is a crap ruling that was based on made up crap. If it was based on something real it would not be subject to political whims over turning it. It is so only because it was created by political whim. Live by the sword, die by the sword. Next time maybe the USSC will avoid making shit up from the bench instead of following the constitution.

    3) you are dumb. I was going to say dumb as a box of bricks but the bricks had a ether track record at avoiding stupidity than you do.

    4) you are dumb. Yes, it needed to be said again.

  56. So basically by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Mueller didn't establish evidence to determine it "beyond a reasonable doubt". Doesn't imply Trump was exonerated but that his shady shit fell into a gray area. It also says nothing of other crimes he absolutely committed, such as campaign violations, let along anything that turns up in his tax returns, real estate deals etc.

    1. Re:So basically by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, I know absolutely nothing about you but there is no definite proof that you are not a drug pusher and wife beater. Shady shit, gray area.

  57. I agree there's still a lot there by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    but there's nothing so blitheringly obvious as to force Trump's supporters to turn on him.

    On the plus side if Pelosi does her job right it'll keep Trump's administration busy and keep him from doing any more harm until 2020.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:I agree there's still a lot there by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Gridlock is always good, it was great in '10.

      What's going to stop Trump after 2020?

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    2. Re:I agree there's still a lot there by Patent+Lover · · Score: 2

      They wouldn't turn on him if he fucked Ronald Reagan's corpse with an American flag while wearing a black lives matter t-shirt.

  58. There are a lot of us here in America by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    who really, really want that crap to stop, right now. We'd like to get folks like Bernie Sanders or Tulsi Gabbard into office to do just that.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:There are a lot of us here in America by Cmdln+Daco · · Score: 1

      Trump has been doing a lot to discourage foreign incursions.

      The globalists are furious that we aren't engaged in a land war in Syria, for instance. Hillary almost promised them that if she was elected.

    2. Re:There are a lot of us here in America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And if they tried, they'd be facing the same opposition you're seeing against Trump right now. There'd be endless sham investigations, accusations, resistance, stonewalling, misdirection, and activist judges blocking anything they'd try to pass if it gets in the way of whatt the MIC and other TLAs want for their owners.

  59. Re:Trump's campaign manager and personal lawyer... by rsilvergun · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    True, Trump does have a lot more to answer for than collusion.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  60. Re:Trump's campaign manager and personal lawyer... by quantaman · · Score: 3, Informative

    Actually, Manafort and Cohen both been convicted of cheating on their taxes in cases unconnected to Trump and his campaign.

    Cohen was ALSO convicted of campaign finance violations. And lying to congress (about the campaign).

    Though to my knowledge you are correct that Manafort's convictions were unrelated to Trump's campaign.

    Wow! That's the exact opposite of what you said! There was no underlying crime of "collusion" or "conspiracy", AND there was no evidence that Trump attempted to obstruct any investigation even if there had been one.

    Actually, except for the Manafort bit, the AC was fairly on-base your counter is either irrelevant or overblown.

    The AC didn't claim collusion, he claimed that Trump encouraged Russian attacks on TV, which is true.

    As for the obstruction charge, there's definitely evidence. What Mueller basically said is that he didn't find evidence of collusion in the campaign, and if you don't have proof of the crime that was being investigated it's harder to prove that efforts to kill that investigation were obstruction of justice.

    But he explicitly says that it doesn't exonerate Trump, and the AG could decide otherwise (though he naturally won't of course).

    And while we're at it, since the Trumpists are so fond of playing this game, lets point out another few things.

    1) Mueller established that Manafort lied after agreeing to cooperate, but didn't seem to try for additional info. Manafort had some very fishy ties to Russian oligarchs connected to Putin and very easily could have had more info.
    2) Mueller doesn't seem to have tried questioning Trump Jr and Kushner about the Trump tower meeting.
    3) Despite the fact there's judicial precedent to subpoena a sitting President for questioning Mueller never tried. Instead he negotiated a list of questions and let Trump and his lawyers craft answers.
    4) Papadopoulos was bragging about the emails that Russia stole to the Greek Foreign Minister, do you really think he didn't blab about it to other members of the campaign? Who did he tell? How did they use that information?
    5) You had a Republican investigator, reporting to a Republican supervisor, reporting to a Republican AG, investigating a Republican President. I'm not saying that Mueller was trying to cover anything up, but he certainly seems to have treated Trump with kid gloves.

    --
    I stole this Sig
  61. Stocks Will Skyrocket by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The DOW closed down 400 on Friday.
    Where will close on Monday?

    1. Re: Stocks Will Skyrocket by ClickOnThis · · Score: 0

      The market is not that simple.

      The market didn't give a toss about Bill Clinton's impeachment. I doubt it will care about the Mueller report. (As I write this, the market futures are up only modestly.) Besides, Trump is nowhere near being in the clear yet.

      Signs are pointing to a global economic slowdown. That's why the market tanked on Friday. It may rally again (it often does before a recession) but don't be too sure it will last, no matter what happens in the UK or in 2020.

      --
      If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
    2. Re: Stocks Will Skyrocket by skids · · Score: 1

      ...or the market will realize that now there is a rather short time limit on the "wait for the Muller" excuse not to impeach Trump for his nearly innumerable other offenses.

      Place your bets. It's the world's greatest casino.

    3. Re: Stocks Will Skyrocket by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It's been a horrible weekend for the loony left. Between Mueller, Babs Streisand and her excuse for Michael Jackson's "needs", the fall of ISIS and the cop exonerated for shooting an unnamed black teenager, conservatives have had a banner weekend.

    4. Re: Stocks Will Skyrocket by sycodon · · Score: 0

      I usually browse at -1.

      For this thread, I set it to 1.

      Amazing how much batshit crazy goes away.

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    5. Re: Stocks Will Skyrocket by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Its remarks like this that really illustrate the facts. MAGA!! And no, not because I support DJT blindly. But because the other side is/"Are who we thought they were!" So maybe in 2020 they will be the cult and end up like "The Happening".

    6. Re: Stocks Will Skyrocket by ClickOnThis · · Score: 1

      Trump and his associates may have dodged a bullet with the Mueller probe, but I say again, he is nowhere near being in the clear yet. He is facing other legal challenges, including investigations into his organization and his charity, his alleged participation in the Stormy Daniels hush payments, and allegations of sexual assault.

      https://www.washingtonpost.com...

      --
      If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
    7. Re: Stocks Will Skyrocket by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Stormy Daniels, whose lawyer was just arrested today for wire fraud and extortion?

      I'm genuinely asking this... How does it feel to be consistently wrong about every single thing that you believe, constantly? Literally every stupid thing you've thought or said in the past 2 years has blown up in your fetal-alcohol-syndromed face.

      At some point even bacteria and other lower lifeforms learn after repeated failure. You can't possibly be this fucking moronic... Can you?

    8. Re: Stocks Will Skyrocket by walllaby · · Score: 2

      The yank trolls are out in full force tonight...

    9. Re: Stocks Will Skyrocket by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can screech impeach into the void all you want.

      It's as effective today as it was yesterday.

  62. Re:Trump's campaign manager and personal lawyer... by Koby77 · · Score: 1, Insightful

    I could rob a bank, and say that I did it because Crooked Hillary told me to do so. Would you then go ahead and arrest Crooked Hillary for masterminding a bank robbery?

  63. Re: Trump's campaign manager and personal lawyer. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The evidence was mind control I guess.
    You know, that or like a phone call.
    A super powerful phone call that acted just like a mind control device!
    That the Russians made!

  64. Re:Trump's campaign manager and personal lawyer... by ClickOnThis · · Score: 0, Troll

    Actually, Manafort and Cohen both been convicted of cheating on their taxes in cases unconnected to Trump and his campaign.

    Cohen was also convicted of violating campaign finance laws. (Hush payments to Stormy Daniels.) Cohen says he did this "for the benefit of, at the direction of, and in coordination with Individual Number 1. And for the record, Individual Number 1 is President Donald J. Trump."

    The Mueller report is just the end of the beginning. Grab your popcorn, folks.

    --
    If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
  65. there was clear Russian interference by fustakrakich · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Bullshit! Buying ads and posting on social media is not "interference". You gotta prove they hacked the machines and fudged the count.

    If you want to see interference, look at what the DNC did to Sanders

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    1. Re:there was clear Russian interference by Patent+Lover · · Score: 1

      Look at the 13 indicted Russians.

    2. Re:there was clear Russian interference by guacamole · · Score: 1

      The most meaningless indictment in history. Its only purpose was to ruin Trump's meeting with Putin happening on the same day.

    3. Re:there was clear Russian interference by Cmdln+Daco · · Score: 1

      Who Mueller refused to allow to tell their story.

    4. Re:there was clear Russian interference by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      What about 'em?

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    5. Re:there was clear Russian interference by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean the ones that called his bluff and when they wanted to see him in court, Mueller panicked and tried to get the judge to delay it because he obviously had nothing?

      Or was it the company he accused of committing interference before they even existed as a company?

    6. Re:there was clear Russian interference by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Buying ads and posting on social media is not "interference".

      You know that political advertising is legally regulated right?

    7. Re:there was clear Russian interference by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      It's a clear violation of the 1st Amendment. Especially since it's political. That is supposed the most protected speech. This is why we're fucked up. We won't demand that the law be enforced as written. Nobody has any right to regulate speech, much less political speech. And it's wrong to even classify it. Speech is speech, and nothing more.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
  66. Because of new info by SuperKendall · · Score: 1, Informative

    We just found out that McCain was involved with spreading the known to be false rumor that Trump had colluded with Russia - a fact worthy of revealing to everyone.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Because of new info by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      McCain was a traitor and a knave most of his adult life. Keating Five.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    2. Re:Because of new info by GrimSavant · · Score: 1

      We just found out what again? If you are talking about the Steele dossier, we've known since before McCain was dead that McCain and his team had their hands on the dossier and had given it over to the FBI. An associate of McCain had given it to Buzzfeed as was revealed recently, who were the ones who finally published it after the election in 2017, but the dossier was an open secret bouncing around well before then, and David Corn at Mother Jones was reporting on it before the election.

      But again, it was public knowledge well before the twitter fight with the dead that McCain and his team were passing around that dossier, and they weren't the only ones who knew about it.

    3. Re:Because of new info by grep+-v+'.*'+* · · Score: 1

      We just found out that McCain was involved with spreading the known to be false rumor that Trump had colluded with Russia - a fact worthy of revealing to everyone.

      But he's [McCain's] dead, and you don't want to malign the dead, do you? Therefore what he said must be the truth.

      Besides, Trump is still breathing and THAT'S a crime against Humanity that must be repaired No Matter What The Cost To Our Democracy.

      Someone who says "America First" and then tries to do just that? Why, the next you know you'll be expecting ALL of the politicians to keep the promises they made.

      --
      If the universe is someone's simulation -- does that mean the stars are just stuck pixels?
  67. You need vastly more than that for the rich. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See OJ Simpson, for example. And since the president appointed the AG and the AG was left to determine whether the president who appointed him should be charged, are we expecting anything OTHER than a refusal to do his job???

    It's up to the houses to do the job the AG should have done, but was too cowardly or venal to do so.

  68. MSNBC wild accusations are funny by Cito · · Score: 1, Informative

    I do admit everything I've written only up Thomas Jefferson warning us of fake news at his inaugural address is dipped in hyperbole.

    MSNBC kept trying not to read this part:

    "The Special Counsel found that Russian government actors successfully hacked into computers and obtained emails from persons affiliated with the Clinton campaign and Democratic Party organizations, and publicly disseminated those materials through various intermediaries, including WikiLeaks. "

    2 talking heads on there act like they are on verge of crying, and all solemnly make blatant false accusations by first insinuating Mueller was actually a Trump supporter or paid off. Then on top of that to get even more ridiculous and slanderous, that Joy Reid bitch actually claimed that Mueller could likely be a white supremacist and that there should be more lawsuits and Mueller needs to be investigated by a special counsel for ties into White supremacy.

    Haha they are absolutely so stupid.

    I wish the government would shut down all the 24 hour news channels by revoking their licenses.

    Thomas Jefferson warned us of fake news during his inauguration. He did admit that other more pressing matters weighed on the states but he wanted fake news prosecuted under defamation and slander laws. To quote an excerpt from his second inauguration speech:

    March 4, 1805
    Excerpt :
    "During this course of administration, and in order to disturb it, the artillery of the press has been levelled against us, charged with whatsoever its licentiousness could devise or dare. These abuses of an institution so important to freedom and science, are deeply to be regretted, inasmuch as they tend to lessen its usefulness, and to sap its safety; they might, indeed, have been corrected by the wholesome punishments reserved and provided by the laws of the several States against falsehood and defamation; but public duties more urgent press on the time of public servants, and the offenders have therefore been left to find their punishment in the public indignation. "

    Things were a lot better before the 24 hour news channels began. Even into late 80s in their infancy before Gonzo journalism took hold.

      One proof was the yearly NBC tribute to the president gala that aired after awards season wrapped up. Where Hollywood came out to celebrate the president. Seeing Don Rickles many years prior roast Reagan running for governor then again on stage roasting him as president was absolute gold.

    1. Re:MSNBC wild accusations are funny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cable networks don't need licenses, they aren't broadcast over the airwaves.

    2. Re:MSNBC wild accusations are funny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Attention cito-homo, Trump is not exonerated.. They cannot prosecute a sitting President, only Congress can remove him. The Congressional investigations continue. Trump's treason-in-plain-sight is still obvious.

      Trump dies in prison either way. Sorry, faggot! You will never win, traitor. Mueller simply deferred to his chain of command, Congress. Now Congress will hang the traitor and his bitch beta traitor sons, bauble whore daughter.

      All of them will die in prison for their lifetimes of crimes. Don't worry lol. We've got HUNDREDS of options to choose from, it's really about which one comes first... once Trump leaves office, it's straight to prison.

      Sealed indictments are still sealed.

    3. Re:MSNBC wild accusations are funny by kenh · · Score: 1

      I wish the government would shut down all the 24 hour news channels by revoking their license

      As cable channels they do not have "licenses" - they do not have transmitters, they do not broadcast.

      --
      Ken
    4. Re:MSNBC wild accusations are funny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Based on the repeated projection we see from some members of the DNC and their operatives and press lackeys, it might be safer to assume that their failed coup is going to land them in prison on sedition charges.

      You wouldn't be collecting a paycheck from them to post stuff like this, would you? Perhaps you should take some time to think about the consequences of your actions before the counter-investigations start up.

    5. Re:MSNBC wild accusations are funny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Trump has not been found innocent of any charge, including collusion which isn't even a charge. The fact is Trump dies in prison either way, for his many hundreds of crimes. There's nothing Barr can do about it once he's gone.

      Trump dies in prison, the system works.

    6. Re:MSNBC wild accusations are funny by thereddaikon · · Score: 1

      You are thinking of CNN which was innovative at the time for being the first cable only news network. ABC, NBC, CBS are all broadcasters and are licensed.

    7. Re:MSNBC wild accusations are funny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      none of those are "24 hours news" channels like CNN, Fox News, and MSNBC

  69. but... by Patent+Lover · · Score: 1

    But, but Hillary's emails!

  70. Re:Trump's campaign manager and personal lawyer... by owlaf · · Score: 1

    I have read up a bit from journalist and book writers that have followed Trump for years, and a common thought he has habitually cheated on his taxes, discriminated against minorities, etc. I have been wondering if his real concern was looking deep into his business that could bring non Russia related collusion crimes. His businesses have been performing less since he has been in office and become this global spectacle. The investigations will continue and already started in places like the SDNY. Trump's real concern might come to light the affect on his wealth

  71. Re:Show me the man and I’ll find you the cri by ClickOnThis · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Muller had two years and achieved a come FAIL!!!

    37 indictments, 6 guilty please, and one conviction. That doesn't sound like a fail to me.

    If you want to talk about failure, look at the R's obsessive investigations of Hillary before the 2016 election. E-mails? zero indictments. Benghazi? zero indictments. But of course, indictments really weren't the objective. They just wanted to tarnish her because she was the presumptive 2016 nominee for the Ds.

    --
    If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
  72. Russian Interference: Protected by First Amendment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    According to a report by NPR, the U.S. Constitution applies to Hispanic illegal aliens, who are not American citizens.

    So, the U.S. Constitution applies to Russian citizens, who also are not American citizens. All interference by Russian citizens in the American election involved written or spoken expression, which is protected by the First Amendment.

    Furthermore, Russian disinformation is less severe than disinformation produced by the mainstream media (MSM) to support Hispanic illegal aliens. Consider the deceptive claim (by the MSM) that they commit crimes at lower rates than American natives. Get more info about this issue.

  73. Re:Trump's campaign manager and personal lawyer... by Freischutz · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    The Mueller report is just the end of the beginning. Grab your popcorn, folks.

    Yup, the real fun begins when they out his tax returns charge him with everything from insurance fraud to tax cheating and start disassembling Trump's 'empire'.

  74. Rightwingers always gleeful at a hanging. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See Shrub as Texas Governor, for example. Kinda why "Deplorables" was 100% right and triggered you the fuck right off, didn't it?

  75. Re:Trump's campaign manager and personal lawyer... by ClickOnThis · · Score: 1

    Correction: Cohen was not convicted -- he pleaded guilty. Thanks to others in this thread who pointed that out.

    --
    If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
  76. Re:Trump's campaign manager and personal lawyer... by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

    Obstruction is still very much in play. It was obstruction that brought down Nixon. And need I point out that this is not Mueller's report, rather this is Trump's hired gun's spin of Mueller's report. Let's see what Mueller has to say about that when Congress subpoenas him.

    --
    When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
  77. So did Hillary delete the emails in Russia??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Because that factoid there otherwise makes no fucking difference, does it. If trump hadn't colluded with Russia to get the info out to interfere with the election, which you will note, happened years after Russia got those emails, so begging the question why they didn't release any years ago when they got them, hmm?

    If anything your fact makes it far more suspicious, given the "coincidental" timing of them, when it had had years to happen.

    That a Republican AG and a Republican investigator set up by a Republican House and tasked with a very tight remit by a Republican Senate (unlike Starr's attempt to find a crime, any crime, of a Democrat) reporting on a Republican president has not even attempted to investigate (the limited remit, remember) the president for wrongdoing despite clear evidence as part of the public record (he said he fired Comey for the Russia investigation on TV!) really only demonstrates how little republicans CARE that their dishonesty is blatant. If they'd TRIED and failed to find, then that would be the end of it, but they didn't even try, and it's clear they didn't, so even if there were nothing to find, the FACT they didn't even look for it leaves it 100% open still.

    What this may mean is that there will be a call to investigate when the democrat win the presidency.

    1. Re:So did Hillary delete the emails in Russia??? by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Bullshit. On that date it was impossible for anybody to hack into her server. GGP made a specific charge that he knew to be false, but derp.

      Trump took a shot at Hillary, pointing out that _everybody_ except the investigators had copies of her entire email server.

      The truth is nobody expected Hillary to lose, the Ruskies were just 'stirring the pot'. The majority of their support having gone to fringe left causes.

      When a D wins the presidency (perhaps 2024?), expect a four year investigation into a D 'nothingburger'. Turnabout is always fair play.

      In the meantime, it's on for Hillary now! Just like you are saying about the Ds reinvestigating, the Rs will now investigate the Clinton whitewash.

      Unless the Dirt the Clintons have on establishment Rs is enough to influence Trump. That could break either way.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    2. Re:So did Hillary delete the emails in Russia??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ^ This moron asserts there's "$50 of steel in a car" also... Sorry, your lies are too easily exposed, you nutless little bitch. You're a faggot of no value. Not $50 worth of anything in your entire life.

      You're 100% bullshit.

  78. nepotistic scum by harvey+the+nerd · · Score: 1, Informative

    Because dead man was a notorious scum that traded on propaganda that continues to damage US.
    1. Dead man was contributory to almost sinking an aircraft carrier, skated and went on vacation;
    2. Dead man aided the coverup of the abandonment of ~600 POWs and long bullied their families;
    3. Dead man disgraced himself, aiding the enemy while a POW;
    4. Dead man disgraced himself, dumping an injured, faithful wife that stood by him for a rich, newer model;
    5. Dead man was involved in scandals that unfortunately didn't finish him;
    6. Dead man's career was built on MSM propaganda not allowed to be exposed during his rotten life;
    7. Dead man betrayed R voters and didn't relinquish his seat when unable to perform.

    1. Re:nepotistic scum by Patent+Lover · · Score: 1

      This doesn't quite explain why the President of the fucking United States is tweeting at a dead man. What the fuck?

    2. Re:nepotistic scum by Cmdln+Daco · · Score: 1

      It explains why McCain was a piece of shit. And went on to be a piece of shit through his entire life. Very honorably, mind you. That's how a piece of shit manages to die old and in bed.

    3. Re:nepotistic scum by Patent+Lover · · Score: 1

      Hitler was a much bigger piece of shit. Nobody is tweeting about him late at night. WHAT THE FUCK?

    4. Re:nepotistic scum by harvey+the+nerd · · Score: 0

      ...dead man was a notorious scum that traded on propaganda that continues to damage US.

      McCain's participation with the bullshit dossier and Mc's usual backstabbing fostered a series of serious crimes (FISA etc) before the election that has snowballed into a slow moving coup attempt after the election. This undermines US policy and credibility abroad and normal political process domestically. The whole thing has driven Russia into China's arms when the two are natural opponents.

      Now Russia and China are challenging the US in Venezuela. Russia has just landed troops in Venezuela today. Unimaginable if the US had pre-O credibility. "Thanks".

    5. Re:nepotistic scum by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The dossier actually proves Trump is a traitor, and has been backed up with dozens of convictions. Trump dies in prison either way, sorry Traitor. Barr isn't going to stop shit, in the end.

    6. Re: nepotistic scum by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If McCain was a piece of shit Trump is a flamming piece of shit.

    7. Re:nepotistic scum by harvey+the+nerd · · Score: 1

      Dear low info reader, too much fake news for you...

    8. Re:nepotistic scum by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Left tweet about him ALL THE FUCKING TIME.

    9. Re:nepotistic scum by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      #1, ah regurgitating some fabricate/exaggerate story from republican as fact again because the guy was alive from the incident. He may not be the bravest, but I won't go to the opposite side as an extreme to call him a traitor.

      #2 & #3 & #6 are interesting. I'm seeing claims from both sides on the Internet that support and against these points. So I will stay neutral on these points.

      #4, he did divorce her. However, he admitted what he did later on. That's what people should look at -- present. If he didn't admit his fault, I would agree with you. However, he did, and I wouldn't hold it against him. So you failed this point. A note on this point though... People should look at the present of how the person becomes and what reaction of the person regarding the event in the past. If the person admits and regrets the fault in the person's life, then it is time to move on. Those who are still stuck to what happened are those who are perfectionists. Remember, no one can go back to the past to fix the mistake he/she did.

      Have your #5 & #7 anything to do with scum, really?

      In conclusion, you are one of real extremists on ./

  79. No Evidence of Trump/Russian Collusion! NONE!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hey, wasn't that the entire reason for the special council investigation?
    Yeah. And they still spinning like a Dervish.
    Even though it has been proven that it was a trumped up accusation bought and paid for by the Hillary Campaign from a foreign agent.
    Even though it has been proven that the Fed's mislead the courts to get warrants and this investigation by pretending it was evidence and not "opposition research".
    Democrats lost the election and failed at a coup. Lose losers really need to give it up.

  80. And two years of investigations found none of it? by raymorris · · Score: 3, Insightful

    > it's more like there's a couple hundred different posts.
    > There's campaign finance. There's tax evasion (lots and lots of that).

    Yeah there are thousands of different crimes defined by law, thousands of laws. Hundreds that Mueller's team and other investigators looked for. Over two years of investigations found clear evidence that Trump commited how many of the hundreds of different things Dems wish they could charge him with? Zero.

    I don't think the conclusion which your post indicates is the one you wanted it to.

    You've pointed out that after years of investigations, they've not found evidence of Trump commiting tax evasion, no campaign finance crimes like AOC and Bernie, there's not even evidence of him obstructing justice - you almost ALWAYS get obstructing justice if you investigate someone long enough. So many things they were looking for and they found none of it.

    Is that what you wanted to point out? Having accidentally pointed it out, are you intellectually capable of reading your own writing and seeing the point that you made (accidentally), or are you a mindless fanboi for team D?

    Trump is very clearly a jackass, though.

  81. Re:Trump's campaign manager and personal lawyer... by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 3, Informative

    The Clinton campaign did the same thing. The difference is, we've had 2 years of investigation into the Trump campaign and it was found to not be collusion. Shall we now do the same with the Clinton campaign and the DNC, who financed the dossier which was written by a foreigner, with Russian influences, to damage their opponent? Or is that not collusion?

    --
    Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
  82. Re:Trump's campaign manager and personal lawyer... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    nothing other than green lighting it as sec of state. It is in her emails if you would like to read more.

  83. Re:And two years of investigations found none of i by Cmdln+Daco · · Score: 5, Funny

    Trump is very clearly a jackass, though.

    That's the other party. Trump is a pachyderm.

  84. There is nothing there by tinkerton · · Score: 1

    The Mueller commission was started to find collusion. There was no collusion.
    The russian facebook campaign is just a clickbait farm doing what clickbait farms do.
    The hacking of the DNC and Podesta: maybe.
    Russia passing mails to wikileaks: nothing more than wild speculation, contradicted by Assange and Craig Murray(who acted as a contact for Wikileaks).

    For analysis see Glenn Greenwald and Aaron Mate, who contrary to the mainstream (including the extremely mainstream BeauHD here) were careful and right all the way.

    The role of the press in the story: awful.
    I'd like journalists to get around to criticizing the government for the real damage they're doing. If they want to regain some credibility. There is little left.

  85. DNC wasn't hacked... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "The Special Counsel found that Russian government actors successfully hacked into computers and obtained emails from persons affiliated with the Clinton campaign and Democratic Party organizations, and publicly disseminated those materials through various intermediaries, including WikiLeaks."

    Except that there's no forensic evidence to show that. There is evidence that suggests the DNC wasn't a hack at all but a leak. The files themselves show that the data was all moved to or via a usb drive at some point between the DNC and being loaded into the archive that went to wikileaks. Guccifer 2.0 was apparently working on a machine set to the US central time zone.
    Most of the hack evidence comes from "assessments", statement that basically say it could have happened this way but they don't know definitively.

    Former NSA guys say that there are a lot of problems with those "assessments":
    https://consortiumnews.com/2019/03/13/vips-muellers-forensics-free-findings/

    1. Re:DNC wasn't hacked... by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      Right, unless Muller has some strong evidence that the file modification times were modified post hoc to make it look like the files were copied locally to throw off the scent and/or frame Seth Rich we should assume the null hypothesis that they are just mtimes and work from there.

      Those forensics say that it was an inside job. That his conclusions are contrary to the data tells me pretty much everything I need to know on where to file the Muller Report (alongside the still-classified sections of the 9/11 report).

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    2. Re:DNC wasn't hacked... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly.

      It's not 100% proof that it was a leak and not a hack, but Mueller's "official" results smell awfully fishy.

      There's still a huge push underway by parts of the US law enforcement and intelligence communities, to nail wikileaks and Assange for espionage. Perhaps these "findings" will feed into that.

    3. Re: DNC wasn't hacked... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now the discussion has turned to retard bingo.

  86. Re: Mueller Report further "evidence" of conspirac by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hey now, Trump is not guilty of everything. He's never even been charged with being brave, for example.

  87. Re:Trump's campaign manager and personal lawyer... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    >Trump's campaign manager, son, and son-in-law met with an agent of the Russian government
    That same "agent of the Russian government" met with the head of Fusion GPS both before and after this meeting on the same trip. Yeah, you know, that same Fusion GPS that was hired by the Hillary campaign to find evidence linking Trump to Russia.

  88. Days ago McCain's extreme deceit was exposed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As part of a regular release of dcouments from the investigation, about a week ago the transcript of some testimony was released which exposed John McCain as having sent an aide to London to get the "dossier" that a British spy named Steel (doing paid work for Hillary and the DNC) generated. McCain's aide brought the copy of the fake dossier to the senator who then passed it into the US Intel community, and then shopped it out over a dozen media outlets. McCain's role in all this gave it apparent bi-partisan and national security legitimacy it would otherwise not have had.

    Back when he was alive, there were rumors McCain was involved, and John McCain was asked about it - he lied his ass off to everybody who asked. John McCain insisted he had no involvement, when in reality we now all know he was in it up to his eyeballs. Trump has been very right to be livid about John McCain this past week and the late Senator's daughter, while properly loving her dad, is completely in the wrong to continue her late father's evil and slander against a political rival who was severely wronged by the Senator.

    Trump may have been aware of McCain's treachery all the way back when this started since he had a rather odd security briefing at Trump tower back when he was a candidate, after which he spoke of being wire tapped and he never again had campaign briefings in the tower but preferred to meet instead on his plane, at his NJ golf place, or at his Florida property. I suspect he was told at that briefing that McCain was spreading rumors about him, in addition tio being warned he was being spied on. Incidentally, as American presidential candidates get further along in the process they get increasingly detailed briefings both so that a sitting president and his allies do not get unfair advantages and also so the final victor is ready to assume power on day one.

  89. Some numbers re investigating the asshole by raymorris · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You mentioned "hundreds of crimes" they looked for.

    Here are some more numbers.

    Nineteen attorneys and 50 FBI agents "issued more than 2,800 subpoenas, executed nearly 500 search warrants, obtained more than 230 orders for communication records, issued almost 50 orders authorizing use of pen registers, made 13 requests to foreign governments for evidence, and interviewed approximately 500 witnesses".

    All that and they found nothing he hasn't posted to Twitter. Why? I have a theory.

    Let's compare some other investigations.
      Investigating Bill Clinton turned up Gennifer Flowers, Jaunita Broderick, Leslie Millwee, Paula Jones, Kathleen Willey, etc. In short, it revealed he's a serial sexual predator and that was the bombshell.

    Investigating Gary Hart turned up Donna Rice. Bombshell, Gary Hart was a womanizer.

    With enough investigation might we find that Trump, too, likes to "grab em by the pussy"? We knew that before the election. He doesn't make any effort to paint himself as the all American boy, a good boy. His jackass is on full display for everyone to see and he likes it that way. Perhaps, investigating Trump reveals that he's exactly the asshole he portrays on Twitter.

    1. Re:Some numbers re investigating the asshole by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      We knew about Gennifer Flowers before the 1992 election. It was not disclosed by an investigation. Gennifer came forward on her own.

      It was a consensual affair, so most voters didn't care. Americans tend to be selectively prudish, tolerating indiscretions in their allies while finding fault with their adversaries.

    2. Re:Some numbers re investigating the asshole by Zaelath · · Score: 1

      The King's Man has declared the King to be good and kind.

      We saw the King on television obstructing justice on a nightly basis.

      Have you ever contemplated embracing reality?

    3. Re:Some numbers re investigating the asshole by jwhyche · · Score: 3, Insightful

      We saw the King on television obstructing justice on a nightly basis.

      If we did maybe you should have brought that to the attention of the Muller team. You could have been a star with that kind of evidence. Oh wait. There is a problem with this. We didn't see Trump on television obstructing justice in any way.

      We have been enduring the Muller farce for the last 2 years. All that time Democrats have been screaming to protect it and 'wait for the Muller report to be released.' Well it has been released and just because the out come doesn't match your warped view of reality, you want to ignore it.

      This is the very definition of Trump Derangement Syndrone

      --
      I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
    4. Re:Some numbers re investigating the asshole by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And this is precisely why I voted for him and will again. And based upon the signs in their yards: Why every one of my neighbors did too.

    5. Re:Some numbers re investigating the asshole by Zaelath · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Is Trump Derangement Syndrome when you lie and believe it? Or when you lie and expect people to ignore it?

      Plenty of examples in this article: https://www.washingtonpost.com...

      You're confusing Muller not having access to information with, as I said, the King's Man being willing to prosecute it.

      The report has not been released.

    6. Re:Some numbers re investigating the asshole by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Technically, it hasn't be released. It was turned over to the DOJ.

      How about we let it be released and let Article One decide what it thinks?

      You, follow the Constitution?

    7. Re:Some numbers re investigating the asshole by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      We have been enduring the Muller farce for the last 2 years.

      A farce? The only thing that has made this a farce is Trump's reaction to it. For the rest of the world it was an investigation into election fraud which didn't implicate the president but nonetheless resulted in 9 convictions.

    8. Re:Some numbers re investigating the asshole by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      With enough investigation might we find that Trump, too, likes to "grab em by the pussy"? We knew that before the election. He doesn't make any effort to paint himself as the all American boy, a good boy. His jackass is on full display for everyone to see and he likes it that way. Perhaps, investigating Trump reveals that he's exactly the asshole he portrays on Twitter.

      We all know that Donald J. Trump is an asshole , but he is the kind of asshole America truly deserves !!

    9. Re:Some numbers re investigating the asshole by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      None of which involved election fraud. Stop trying to spin the story. You're worse than fucking Alex Jones and Bill O'Reiley.

    10. Re:Some numbers re investigating the asshole by thereddaikon · · Score: 1

      I love how you hypocrites were worshiping Mueller and now that report doesn't say what you want it to say he becomes a pawn of Trump. You never will stop moving the goal posts will you? You decided long ago that he must be guilty of something so therefore no matter how many professional law enforcement officers, lawyers, judges and other legal experts tell you he didn't, you still refuse to believe it. You are not smarter and more qualified than Mueller to make that decision. Neither are you more qualified than the team of lawyers he had. Give it up already. Let's get back to talking about policy.

    11. Re:Some numbers re investigating the asshole by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Plenty of examples in this article: https://www.washingtonpost.com...

      You're confusing Muller not having access to information with, as I said, the King's Man being willing to prosecute it.

      If only Muller had access to the Washington Post, we could have gotten a different outcome!

    12. Re:Some numbers re investigating the asshole by Rob+Y. · · Score: 2

      The point is that the report doesn't say what Trump supporters (including you, apparently) says it says. It explicitly says it does not exonerate Trump - just that Barr thinks there's no basis to prosecute. Big surprise, since he made his position clear before being nominated as A.G.

      By the way, Comey did exonerate Hillary on the email thing. Something like "no prosecutor in his right mind would bring charges". He also breached protocol in a major way by condemning her - and releasing a ton of documentation - while declining to bring those charges. That's kind of what needs to happen here - if only because the Republican House report was made based on so much false testimony that the public needs to know what's true and what isn't. Certainly "total exoneration" is not true. It's not hypocritical to be worried that that impression could take root.

      Or, I suppose, we could rest easy knowing that the public already knows the truth - and the extent of the lying to cover it up. To the point that it's unnecessary to worry about that any more. But hey, that's a dicey call - and worrying about it is not exactly hypocrisy. It may be counterproductive, but that's a different story. Sure let's get back to talking about policy. Just not sweeping all they lying and corruption under the rug - just because it doesn't rise to Barr's definition of criminality.

      --
      Posted from my Android phone. Oh, I can change this? There, that's better...
    13. Re:Some numbers re investigating the asshole by jwhyche · · Score: 3

      TDS is what you have. It's when you refuse to accept reality. Repeat after me. There was no Russian Collusion. There was no obstruction of justice. Trump won in 2016, Hillary lost.

      Now repeat this every morning if you are a US citizen. "Trump is my president. Nothing I can say or do will change that. Trump is my president an I accept that. "

      --
      I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
    14. Re:Some numbers re investigating the asshole by jwhyche · · Score: 2

      It is the very definition of hypocrisy. We have endured 2 years of the mueller farce listening to "wait till mueller reports." Well he did and since it doesn't read like they want it to read they are ready to change the rules.

      No. This bullshit is over,

      --
      I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
    15. Re:Some numbers re investigating the asshole by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about this instead: There might have been Russian Collusion. There was likely obstruction of justice but the intent can't be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Trump won the Electoral vote in 2016, Hilary won the popular vote. Trump is OUR president. I can do things that can change that, including voting for someone else in 2020. Trump is NOT my choice as president, and never will be.

    16. Re:Some numbers re investigating the asshole by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I love how you hypocrites were worshiping Mueller and now that report doesn't say what you want it to say he becomes a pawn of Trump. You never will stop moving the goal posts will you? You decided long ago that he must be guilty of something so therefore no matter how many professional law enforcement officers, lawyers, judges and other legal experts tell you he didn't, you still refuse to believe it. You are not smarter and more qualified than Mueller to make that decision. Neither are you more qualified than the team of lawyers he had. Give it up already. Let's get back to talking about policy.

      No, you are confusing. The AG didn't make a conclusion that he wanted, NOT the report didn't say what he wanted. The reason is that the report has not been released to the public yet, so you, I, and most people still don't know what the report said.

    17. Re:Some numbers re investigating the asshole by Zaelath · · Score: 1

      You're confusing Mueller and Barr.

      Maybe you're not as smart as you think you are either.

  90. Re: Trump's campaign manager and personal lawyer.. by zugmeister · · Score: 4, Insightful

    There is evidence, but someone decided it wasn't enough to convict the president.

    You keep consoling yourself with that delusion sweetheart

    I'd like to take this moment to point out that the president has not in fact been convicted of anything. Reality may not agree with your feelings, but it's still reality.

  91. Re:Using CNN as the source by tomhath · · Score: 0

    Using CNN the most biased, fake news organization in existence

    It might be the biggest, but arguably not as biased as USAToday, and possibly Washington Post. Also in contention are Vox, HuffPost and MSNBC, although they probably shouldn't be considered news organizations.

  92. do not flaunt your ignorance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Prosecutors are never tasked with exonerating people or declaring people innocent - they are only charged with going after the guilty, i.e. proving "beyond a reasonable doubt". This is why prosecutors and particularly the pre-Comey FBI have rules against commenting on people they decide not to charge with a crime.

    As a result, when a prosecutor decides a person did not do something wrong, he/she announces the person is not being prosecuted. You never hear a prosecutor announce that somebody is being declared "innocent" or being exonerated The very rare exception is when a wrongly-prosecuted person is being released and a different person is being prosecuted for the crime. What the prosecutor is saying here is essentially: "I looked at all the evidence I could find for guilt and there was none, and I cannot declare the person is innocent because I did not get tasked with investigating and proving the person innocent"

  93. Re:Trump's campaign manager and personal lawyer... by ClickOnThis · · Score: 1, Interesting

    All we have at this point is sentence fragments from Mueller's report. Fragments selected by Trump's new Attorney General and faithful heat-shield William Barr. (Just take a look at how obsequious he was to Trump at the recent veto "ceremony" in the Oval Office.)

    I suspect we will know more -- much more -- if and when the full report is released.

    --
    If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
  94. Glad it's over by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It was a major distraction and now we move on. Democrats in Congress will still act like howler monkeys and of course the least intelligent media entertainer comedian types will keep beating the drum. But it is effectively over and everyone knows it. It was damaging partisan garbage and Democrats have major egg on their faces which they will have to live with through 2020. They likely lost any chance of getting the Senate back and probably the White House too. It was a bad idea to pursue it and now that the Democrats have shifted too far left they will pay heavily.

  95. Re:Show me the man and I’ll find you the cri by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    Please look at Lisa Page testimony released last week.

    DOJ told the FBI was not to criminally charge Hillary. They were denied access to laptops with deleted emails. They were told to stonewall the investigation, by Loretta Lynch.

    Might be a reason nothing was done there. DOJ was corrupt. Its been found out by Congress and they chose to do nothing about it.

  96. Russian interference in the election by Solandri · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's important to avoid selection bias. The best example I've seen was a city wondering if subway funding needed to be increased or decreased. They thought measuing how much the subway was used would be good information for making this decision, so they hired someone to poll the city's residents to see how often they rode the subway. The person initially asked people at random in public spaces how often they rode the subway. He grew frustrated that very few people rode the subway, meaning he was collecting very little data for the number of people he was asking. That's when he got the brilliant idea of going onto the subway and asking people there.

    The problem is, asking people riding the subway how often they use the subway introduces two selection biases. (1) It eliminates everyone who doesn't use the subway from your sample. And (2) people who ride the subway more often are more likely to be encountered in your polling (you're 10x as likely to randomly encounter someone who rides 10 hours a week as you are someone who rides 1 hour a week), skewing your polling data high. To properly measure subway ridership, you have to do a random sample orthogonal to subway use, which means asking random people in public places was the proper way to do it. A random telephone poll would probably have been best.

    Similarly when you target one specific country for investigation, you're introducing a sampling bias. If you accuse a restaurant of being infested with roaches, and that prompts an investigation that finds roaches in the restaurant, that doesn't prove your accusation. All that proves is that the restaurant has roaches, not that it is "infested." Other restaurants may have roaches too. In fact, for all you know, the restaurant you accused may actually be the cleanest building in the city, and even your own house has more roaches than that restaurant. But by limiting the investigation to just that one restaurant, you can misleadingly create the impression that your accusation that the restaurant is infested with roaches is true.

    Over and over, I saw this sampling bias being abused by those wishing to push the Russian interference story. e.g. Google and Facebook reported they searched their 2016 records for ads purchased by Russian agents, and found some. But in order for that to mean anything, they should have also searched for ads purchased by anyone else, and compared. I suspect if they had, they would've found attempted interference by China, by the EU, by Mexico, by Canada, by Anonymous, etc. The magnitude of the "Russian interference" (a few dozen to a few hundred people, and around six dollar figures in magnitude ) makes me suspect all these investigations found was the random noise that just happens everywhere all the time.

    I didn't vote for Trump and I think is Presidency has been a travesty. But I think the abuse of statistics and manipulation of facts through selection bias by the media and those pushing this story is an even bigger travesty. If you really, truly believe that those few Russians managed to affect the outcome of the election using that little money, then every politician would be tripping over themselves to hire those guys. The amount of money spent in that election was staggering - tens to hundreds of dollars per vote. Trump actually spent close to the lowest at $5 per vote. Yet these people pushing this Russian interference angle somehow believe that these Russians were able to affect the election for pennies per vote.

    If this report had found that the Russians had spent tens or hundreds of dollars per vote to interfere with the election, then I'd agree there was something worrying going on. But the amount of interference I've seen reported seems more like just the normal noise that comes from normal people from the sketchy side of the population's bell curve doing their normal sketchy things.

    1. Re:Russian interference in the election by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Google and Facebook reported they searched their 2016 records for ads purchased by Russian agents, and found some. But in order for that to mean anything, they should have also searched for ads purchased by anyone else, and compared.

      That was a very solid analysis but ignores some key points that are very specific to elections. Advertising for elections is regulated. The question of interference in that regard doesn't need require you to identify through random selection patterns in advertising, but rather only identify the presence of actions that fall outside the regulations. In that regard the presence of foreign bought and paid for advertisements through American companies is election interference as these fall outside the rules that "anyone else" are obliged to follow.

    2. Re:Russian interference in the election by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      First of all - yes - all those media statistical reports are full of biased 'payed for' shit and shouldn't be taken seriously. Second, applying 'statistics argument' eh?
      "ITS STATISTICALLY INSIGNIFICANT SO ITS OF NO CONSEQUENCE"

      here is little thought experiment for you.

      Imagine a very tiny air bubble injected in your veins. Its very small, its 'dollar per vote' is negligible, its like a small noise compared to otherwise functioning body.
      Its all harmless and doesn't really do anything right? Its so tiny after all. Until it gets in your brain and causes stroke (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_embolism).
      If you don't like this example replace it with 'small amount of deadly poison'.

      But how is it possible? Its so tiny.... NO - just go away with your statistics arguments and provide solid 'cause and effect' arguments instead.

    3. Re:Russian interference in the election by Ksevio · · Score: 1

      Arguably, the biggest contribution from Russia was getting people to not vote for Hillary. We know they had a large "troll farm" at the IRA which we don't know how much they spent on that. In the end, the numbers showed around the same number voted for Trump as for Romney, but many fewer voted for Clinton than Obama.

    4. Re:Russian interference in the election by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      ...the biggest contribution from Russia was getting people to not vote for Hillary.

      Nobody needed Russian influence for that. She was not a viable candidate. And there was never any lack of voices saying so, but the DNC chose to ignore or silence those voices.

      ...the numbers showed around the same number voted for Trump as for Romney, but many fewer voted for Clinton than Obama.

      Sigh. Just like the time Obama ran against Clinton, remember? People liked Obama.

      People who vote for political parties think everyone else does too. But here in reality, I've staffed voting booths in presidental elections, and it just don't work like that. Democrats didn't get out and vote for Hillary, not because Russians brainwashed them, but because they didn't want to vote for her.

      The political and pundit classes have contempt for the American voter and their minds rebel at the idea that Americans chose to vote for a horror like Trump rather than for a machine politician like Clinton. But that's what actually happened. At this point, it seems pretty clear that Trump will have 8 years, because the Democrats will run Biden or some other machine candidate and lose again.

    5. Re:Russian interference in the election by walllaby · · Score: 1

      Regarding the subway example: you’re actually already creating selection bias based on the question. If people had their way, they’d all be ferried on free Ubers with cell phone chargers and WiFi, or flown on a helicopter. That doesn’t mean their selections are realistic or good for everyone. The decision should also be weighted by the amount of civic stress created by vehicle congestion/parking and/or the timeliness and usefulness of the subway.

  97. Mafia boss by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All good crime bosses make sure nothing can be pinned on them. Comey said that Trump operates just like a mafia boss.

    They know he's dirty. They see the results. But proof to directly tie him to it, nope.

  98. Re:Trump's campaign manager and personal lawyer... by ClickOnThis · · Score: 1, Insightful

    All campaigns gather information about their opponents, and they pay for the research. There's nothing wrong with that, even if the person hired to collect the information is a foreigner. That's not collusion or conspiracy.

    On the other hand, if a campaign co-ordinates with foreigners to engage in activities aimed at influencing an election (such as, oh say, hacking your opponent's email servers) then that is collusion. And if a foreign government handed a campaign unsolicited information about its opponent, then that would be an illegal campaign contribution.

    --
    If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
  99. it was actually a counter-intel operation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    therefore, there are two sets of things that will not be made public:

    [A] Any national security stuff. Remember: much of this involved DOJ,FBI,and CIA intelligence gathering, which means sources&methods stuff and persons whose identities are professionally obscured.

    [B} Any grand jury materials not authorized for release by the overseeing judge/judges (this is true for criminal cases too).

    Most Americans were led to believe that this was a criminal investigation (even though there's no such crime as "collusion"), but it was actually a counter-intelligence investigation looking into the potential corruption of the election by a foreign entity (Russia) so the reality is that large volumes of documents from it cannot be released, much to the unhappiness of Trump supporters who will want it all out to expose the actions of the Obama intel agencies. The Democrats in congress know this material cannot be released and they will use that to further deceive their supporters by pretending Trump is doing a coverup.

  100. Fixed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Meuller is a career civil servant. He threw a soft punch. Trump is as corrupt and up to his neck in collusion as any bent state sector worker who knows how to play the system. He is as guility as they get.

    1. Re:Fixed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except the collusion is with Israel not Russia.

  101. Re:Trump's campaign manager and personal lawyer... by Trimaz · · Score: 1

    Trump derangement syndrome doesn't end when the facts are shown. I guess a random twat that spends their day commenting on Slashdot should know everything, not the guy that did 22 months of investigation.

  102. Re: Trump's campaign manager and personal lawyer.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm confused about that nickname. Trump is a conman, his businesses are under investigation, his college has been fined repeatedly for problematic behavior, he's an admitted sex offender, this report directly says "yes, he acted to obstruct justice, but since he isn't guilty of collusion we'll let it slide and chalk it up to incompetence rather than misdirection", and basically everyone in trumps inner circle are criminals

    But Hillary is the crooked one, because.....? Her emails? What?

  103. Mueller = a (sub)HUMAN FAIL, lol... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See subject: What's the matter BOY? Can't pin your bullshit on our President?? Yes - LMAO @ U you fucking disgusting punk bitch...

    * YOU LOSE MOTHERFUCKER & everyone like ME is LAUGHING THEIR ASSES OFF @ YOU WORLDWIDE - how's it feel, fucker?

    You like??

    CRAWL BITCH!

    ESPECIALLY AFTER WASTING MILLIONS OF DOLLARS and GOV'T. EMPLOYEE TIME ON YOUR BULLSHIT YOU ASSHOLE!

    APK

    P.S.=> I'd love to meet that FUCK for just 3 minutes alone in a room he couldn't get out of (& he wouldn't when I was done w/ his CRONY ass)... apk

  104. Re:Show me the man and I’ll find you the cri by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    >37 indictments, 6 guilty please, and one conviction.
    none of which had anything to do with "russian collusion".

  105. Re:Show me the man and I’ll find you the cri by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

    Mutually assured destruction.

    Why did Cheney walk? Same reason both Clintons did.

    --
    John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  106. Re:Show me the man and I’ll find you the cri by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Mueller investigation was a coup attempt.

    It certainly did fail.

  107. ahem... about that Russian lawyer... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    She was allowed into the USA by the Obama admin, and met with Fusion GPS (the Democrat oppo research firm responsible for the so-called golden showers dossier) she then went to Trump tower to meet with Trump Jr (supposedly to talk about Russian adoption policies (Putin had put a stop to Americans adopting Russian orphans) but actually to try to finagle an end to the Mezvinski act (which sanctions some of Putin's cronies)). Trump Jr, not knowing about the Mezvinski act and not being too interested in the adoption issue, blew-off the meeting...... and then that Russian lawyer went back to meet again with Fusion GPS before being allowed to leave the country by the Obama admin.

    Why the two meetings with the Democrat oppo research firm, and why right before and right after the Trump Tower meet?

    Why did the Obama admin let this supposed agent of Puin into and out of the country for these 3 meetings?

    Why has Glenn Simpson of Fusion GPS avoided government investigators on this stuff for the past 2 years? Why did Hillary and the DNC launder the Fusion GPS payments through the Perkins Coie law firm as "legal expenses" rather than campaign expenses? Maybe it's all innocent, but it sure stinks like a setup.

  108. The libertarian climate denialist view by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes, it's news for (some) nerds. There is no other place you can visit to get the white male libertarian climate denialist nerd viewpoint on political events like this.

  109. Re:Trump's campaign manager and personal lawyer... by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

    What you state didn't happen - at least not for the Trump campaign. We have the Mueller report which explicitly states as much. But we do know - with sworn testimony - that the Clinton campaign and the DNC hired foreign nationals to make shit up. And that is a crime. Would you join in a mutual call to investigate the DNC and Clinton campaign involvement with Fusion GPS, Christopher Steele, and the Russian dossier which was used to justify so much bullshit about the election and afterwards? Yes or no...

    You know, Democrats haven't been this mad at Republicans since we freed their slaves...

    --
    Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
  110. Re:Trump's campaign manager and personal lawyer... by GrumpySteen · · Score: 1

    You mean the dossier that the GOP initially funded and then abandoned when it became clear that Trump was going to win the nomination? That the DNC provided funding for only after the GOP abandoned it?

    Sure.

    I am 100% in favor of indicting every member of the GOP and DNC who and throwing them all out of office at this point.

  111. Re:Trump's campaign manager and personal lawyer... by quonset · · Score: 4, Insightful

    His businesses have been performing less since he has been in office

    It's not since he's been in office. His businesses have always not performed. Back in the 80s, he floated his company on the public market (i.e stock exchange). For the ten years he personally ran that company, it never turned a profit even though at the exact same time, everyone around him was making money hand over fist. However, while this was happening, he bled his casinos dry and was proud of it.

    In fact, a careful investigation of his businesses show they either fail outright (over one dozen and counting), or simply never turn a profit. Look at his golf courses in Scotland and Ireland. To date, none of them has earned money for him. The have lost money year after year. Even more interesting is he is pouring tens of millions more into his Scotland courses using cash, but no one knows where that cash if coming from since he is already so highly in debt.

    Here's something else to consider. Several court cases have held the purpose of a business it to make a profit. Yet, none of the con artist's businesses turn a profit. One has to wonder if the investigations (yes, plural) by the Southern District of New York will find anything about his interesting note.

  112. Re:And two years of investigations found none of i by GrimSavant · · Score: 1, Interesting

    You seem to pretty clearly be misunderstanding Mueller's job and mandate. Mueller had an explicit and narrow mandate to examine particular issues with the Russian efforts in the 2016 election, issues that directly arose from that in particular obstruction of justice, and a couple other specific things that Rosenstein particularly assigned to his team like Manafort's shady finances and associated dealings with Ukrainians. Mueller's job was not to go after Trump for anything and everything he could find, and the clearest example of this was how the bulk of Michael Cohen's assorted crimes was handed back to the Department of Justice in the Southern District of New York. In particular, Mueller wasn't handling the campaign finance crimes at all, he was investigating Cohen for other things and it was the SDNY who came up with those charges on their own they were the ones who came just short of naming Trump an unindicted co-conspirator. Whatever other assorted crimes Trump did or did not commit, it was not up to Mueller to handle it either way; it'll be up to some other authority to adjudicate, such as the regular DoJ, the congress, or state law enforcement.

    And there seems to be clearly evidence of obstruction of justice, just that we aren't being allowed to see it yet, he wouldn't have said the line about it not exonerating Trump if there was nothing there. Instead, Barr decided that it was his duty, for whatever reason, to make the conclusion that there was not a case to be made on obstruction of justice despite Mueller not making a conclusion either way. Given that Barr is a maximalist on executive power in this context and takes a borderline Nixonian position that it is almost impossible for a President to commit obstruction of justice due to his constitutional authorities, you will need to forgive a heavy dose of skepticism of Barr's ability to fairly make an assessment on obstruction of justice without seeing the underlying evidence. The obvious constitutional authority that should be making the conclusions on this particular issue is the congress.

  113. Trump dies in prison either way, sorry faggot. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ^ This moron asserts there's "$50 of steel in a car" also... Sorry, your lies are too easily exposed, you nutless little bitch. You're a faggot of no value. Not $50 worth of anything in your entire life.

    You're 100% bullshit.

  114. Re: Trump's campaign manager and personal lawyer.. by Cmdln+Daco · · Score: 1

    It's almost all they have. This is a miniature version of November 9, 2016 all over again.

  115. Re:Trump's campaign manager and personal lawyer... by Cmdln+Daco · · Score: 2

    Welcome to Fantasy Island. I hope you enjoy your stay.

  116. Re:Trump's campaign manager and personal lawyer... by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

    Absolutely, especially since it was the Free Beacon - and NOT the GOP - that funded the initial research before the DNC and the Clinton campaign turned it up to 11. So let's take the Free Beacon, the DNC, and the entire Clinton campaign to task.

    Oh, and while we're at it, let's not forget that all this happened during the Obama Administration, and most of the senior intelligence officials were aware of the Russian influence and just ignored it, let it continue (as long as they thought it benefited "their side"). So let's toss them, too!

    But there's one group you won't be touching - the Trump campaign and Administration. It's been exonerated by the Mueller report.

    --
    Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
  117. Re:Trump's campaign manager and personal lawyer... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Shall we now do the same with the Clinton campaign and the DNC, who financed the dossier which was written by a foreigner, with Russian influences, to damage their opponent? Or is that not collusion?

    If you keep posting about it on Slashdot, I'm sure it'll happen.

  118. Trump dies in prison either way. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Trump has Goldman Sachs people in his administration right now. You're a traitor either way. Trump "gave up" Syria and "gave up" on NK denuclearization and "gave up" on his China hardline bullshit... Trump is just a quitter and pussy.

    He gets into a tough spot, can't get out, makes a bunch of noise, lies about his situation, then runs from it. He'll die in prison either way.

  119. Re:Mueller = a (sub)HUMAN FAIL, lol... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oooh look resident incel fatass virgin is ranting again. Sad.

  120. Trump dies in prison either way. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When Trump's taxes come out and show he laundered money for the Russian mob for decades and he goes to prison anyway, you can be sure to wipe your tears away with Putin's soft cock, you treasonous little faggot lol.

  121. Mueller would be very surprised to hear that by raymorris · · Score: 2, Insightful

    You're claiming Muller didn't investigate Cohen and dig evidence related to the crimes for which he was charged, and hand that evidence over to prosecutors like any investigator does? Muller would be very surprised to hear that! Muller would also be guilty of perjury if that were so, since he submitted sentencing recommendation for Cohe to the court, and in it made statements to the court about him investigating the crimes Cohen was charged with.

    Here's the government's sentencing recommendation for Cohen. Notice who signed it as the author:
    https://www.documentcloud.org/...

    1. Re:Mueller would be very surprised to hear that by GrimSavant · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Huh? Are you not understanding what I posted, or that document that you posted? Because what you said doesn't make sense.

      Mueller got a guilty plea from Cohen about lying about the Moscow project, which was a matter within the special's mandate given to him by Deputy AG Rosenstein. Mueller did not get the guilty plea from Cohen about the other financial and campaign finance crimes, that was the SDNY portion of the Department of Justice (who was less considerably less thrilled with Cohen's level of cooperation than the special counsel was). The investigators obviously shared evidence obtained by the FBI, but the parts of the criminal investigations outside of Mueller's mandate were handed off to the other more permanent law enforcement agencies, and those are pretty clearly not resolved by the conclusion of the special counsel investigation.

      This is in contrast to the old post-Watergate independent counsel law that Ken Starr and the like operated under, which had way more latitude in what they went after.

  122. Re:This is SlashDot, not HuffPo by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 0

    Muller's claims about hacking are refuted by forensic evidence.

    Either:
    1) Muller has stronger evidence nobody has seen yet.
    2) Muller doesn't understand the forensic evidence
    3) Muller is lying to Congress to try to keep prosecution going on Wikileaks.

    That's an incredibly important "tech" angle.

    --
    My God, it's Full of Source!
    OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  123. Re:Show me the man and I’ll find you the cri by tsqr · · Score: 0

    37 indictments, 6 guilty please, and one conviction. That doesn't sound like a fail to me.

    You do recall, don't you, that 32 of those indictments were against foreign nationals who will never be brought to trial? I suppose that qualifies as a symbolic non-fail.

  124. This is what hacking an election is? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So hacking a political party organization is "hacking the election"?

    I thought "hacking the election" would be more along the lines of breaking into voting machines, grabbing ballot boxes, threatening election officials, flooding fakes votes or something like that....

    Hacking a political party does not sound anything like hacking an election to me.

    1. Re:This is what hacking an election is? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, "hacking the election" means hacking the result.

      And if you think Russia had nothing to do with tilting the scale for Trump, well, you should check with your own Intelligence Services.

  125. Sorry, Trump dies in prison either way. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That doesn't stop Trump from dying in prison, a traitor.

    1. Re: Sorry, Trump dies in prison either way. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Honestly, I don't give a rat's ass if he rots in prison someday. But today, your tears taste delicious!

  126. Re:Trump's campaign manager and personal lawyer... by ClickOnThis · · Score: 2

    You asked rhetorically whether hiring a foreigner to do research was collusion. It is not. And the FEC link you provided is silent on this matter. There is a mention of volunteer work by foreigners, but the context pertains to unsolicited volunteer work by a foreigner that might otherwise be considered a contribution. When a foreigner's activities cross the threshold of participating in the decision-making of the campaign, then it's a violation.

    As for your original comment on both campaigns meeting with a foreign diplomat, there's nothing wrong with that either, unless of course you are engaging them in the strategizing or decision-making of the campaign.

    --
    If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
  127. Re:Trump's campaign manager and personal lawyer... by grep+-v+'.*'+* · · Score: 1

    Or is that not collusion?

    ?? What? What are you talking about? They meant well, therefore they're innocent, pure as the driven [-over] snow. They're the good guys, trying to create a everlasting world of "good perfect feeling" equality where no one is ever hurt by cruel words such as: "truth", "I think that", or "that's not right." If you want to be a airplane pilot then BE ONE. No training is required if you just believe in yourself enough -- ignore the doubters and regulators, they don't understand your glory.

    We'll have no eureka moments since everyone will be thinking the exact same way.

    Cultural Appropriation? Invert that -- we'll soon have Cultural Imposition where the whole world must think like we do.

    The joke used to be: "Play Nice or we'll bring freedom to your country too". Now it's: "Play Nice or we'll cry and hold our breath until you do".

    --
    If the universe is someone's simulation -- does that mean the stars are just stuck pixels?
  128. Re: Trump's campaign manager and personal lawyer.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I wondered if I will get modded down for such a factual unbiased post.

    We will never have proof of it, because mods can't post.

    If you are modded down, it would merely be evidence, but perhaps you were modded down for some other reason?

  129. Re:Trump's campaign manager and personal lawyer... by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

    if a campaign co-ordinates with foreigners to engage in activities aimed at influencing an election (such as, oh say, hacking your opponent's email servers) then that is collusion

    Your words, not mine. Is that a crime or not? Because Mueller said it never happened for the Trump campaign - but we have sworn testimony from FBI agents and other that it DID happen with the Clinton campaign.

    --
    Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
  130. Re:Trump's campaign manager and personal lawyer... by skids · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Sigh, I'm so sick of whataboutism and fake controversies from the trumpkins. At least they've stopped saying nuclear material was physically transported from Canada/US to Russia. That's progress I guess. Like, a 'getting your kid to stop eating the boogers but not the public nose picking itself" level of progress.

  131. Re:Trump's campaign manager and personal lawyer... by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 0

    I love the saying:

    Democrats haven't been so mad at Republicans since we freed their slaves

    Responses show their true nature...

    --
    Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
  132. Re: Trump's campaign manager and personal lawyer.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes, like how can he send American tax dollars to support Israel, when we have our own homeless and unemployed citizens to take care of?

  133. 100% wrong. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wrong. That's absolutely not the case. You can obstruct even if there is no initial crime, once it's being investigated there are several ways to obstruct illegally. Trump is 100% guilty of them, Mueller gave Barr the discretion to decide.

    Congress will ultimately decide, followed by a jury. Trump dies in prison either way, there are simply too many illegal acts.

  134. Actually no, that's not what he found by rsilvergun · · Score: 0

    he found there wasn't enough evidence to conclude one way or the other. And if this same thing happened to Obama that would be the lead. But being as this is Trump the lead is "No Collusion".

    I bitch about right wing media bias a lot, and this is why. A center-right president like Obama gets dumped all over every chance the media gets. A far-right president like Trump gets favorable coverage all over.

    MSNBC though, they ran with "AG Barr, Trump appointee, says Trump did not obstruct justice. Mueller never did.". They're trying, bless their little hearts, but they really, really suck at it.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:Actually no, that's not what he found by bobbied · · Score: 1

      Incorrect. The AG's summary clearly says there was no evidence of collusion; Which includes the Trump Tower meeting.

      Mueller cannot prove a negative, nor can Trump. Conspiracy theories are born on such logical errors.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    2. Re: Actually no, that's not what he found by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Center right president like Obama?!?

      How can you WRITE something so... so... silly? Laughable? Detached from any vestige of rational or logical thought? I donâ(TM)t have the words I guess.

      HINT: Moving to the extreme left doesnâ(TM)t pull everyone else that way. You are just further from the median.

      You folks are simply hilarious.

    3. Re:Actually no, that's not what he found by phlinn · · Score: 1

      If you believe the media has a right wing bias, you are delusional. There is no way a right wing media would have highlighted every mistake Trump has ever made, and downplayed every mistake Obama made during his "scandal free" eight years in office. Hell, look at the attacks on Trump which included pictures of kids in cages from the Obama years, which had been basically ignored previously.

      --
      "Pulling together is the aim of despotism and tyranny! Free men pull in all sorts of directions" -- Havelock Vetinari
    4. Re: Actually no, that's not what he found by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're delusional if you think that the thousands of children abducted by the Trump Administration in a willful and deliberate act of punitive policy which was so bad they couldn't even keep track of how many they had stolen is not an example of right-wing bias as those same rightwing pundits spent years crying over the death of a single border patrol officer based on a program begun under the Bush administration to track existing illegal firearms trafficking.

      And that isn't even counting all the freak out over a Cuban illegal immigrant they wanted to keep from his remaining parent. Or how President Bone Spurs is allowed to diss a warhero while Obama can't even criticize a stupid action by police.

      Sorry dude, but right-wing bias is endemic.

  135. "11/8 Truthers" won't give up by knorthern+knight · · Score: 1

    The decision was made by American voters on November 8th, 2016. "The Resistance" refuses to accept it, and tried to use the Deep State to stage a coup..

    --

    I'm not repeating myself
    I'm an X window user; I'm an ex-Windows user
  136. Trump dies in prison either way, too many crimes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wrong. That's absolutely not the case. You can obstruct even if there is no initial crime, once it's being investigated there are several ways to obstruct illegally. Trump is 100% guilty of them, Mueller gave Barr the discretion to decide.

    Congress will ultimately decide, followed by a jury. Trump dies in prison either way, there are simply too many illegal acts.

  137. Re:Trump's campaign manager and personal lawyer... by bobbied · · Score: 1

    But we have the AG's summary.

    It's pretty clear from the summary, nobody in Trump's campaign was colluding with the Russians. This clearly includes the Trump Tower meeting.

    I suppose you could invent a wild conspiracy theory to explain Mueller's report... After all it seems this whole thing was based on a conspiracy theory, so why not go whole hog?

    --
    "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
  138. Re:TRUMP WILL WIN IN 2020. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh it grates already.

  139. "any matters that arise", "any federal crime" by raymorris · · Score: 1

    Yes, he did hand over some evidence to other parts of Justice, bringing the total number of investigators into the hundreds.

    Mueller's appointment is only about a dozen sentences, so you can read it for yourself, but I'll point out items ii and IV.

    Mueller is authorized to investigate'
    "ii. Any matters which arise during the investigation, or may arise"

    And to prosecute:

    "iv. any federal crime"

    Nobody limited Mueller's scope, other than whatever Mueller himself decided to offload to others, at the time Mueller chose to do it.

    1. Re:"any matters that arise", "any federal crime" by GrimSavant · · Score: 4, Interesting
      Alright, lets just look at the original documents from Rosenstein on Muller's authority. The public appointment memo is here: Rosensein letter appointing special counsel.

      There was a more specific classified order that outlined what in particular Muller was supposed to investigate that was released in partially redacted form during Manafort's trial, here: The Scope of Investigation and Definition of Authority

      Mueller was ordered to handle particular investigations in that classified memo, including the Manafort business, and could ask to expand his probe in request to the acting AG Rosenstein.

      For additional matters that otherwise may have arisen or may arise directly from the Investigation, you should consult my office for a determination of whether such matters should be within the scope of your authority. If you determine that additional jurisdiction is necessary in order to fully investigate and resolve the matters assigned, or to investigate new matters that come to light in the course of your investigation, you should follow the procedures set forth in 28 C.F.R. 600.4(b).

      Barr's report said that there was never a case where the DoJ overruled the special counsel on prosecutorial orders, so presumably Mueller and Rosenstein (and perhaps subsequently Whitaker and Barr as well) agreed to the scope of the investigation and investigations and prosecutions on unrelated matters were handed off to other authorities.

      Which is the point I'm trying to make that you seem to have trouble with: Mueller was only investigating a limited set of matters, and if he expanded his scope at all it was also in a limited manner made in consultation with DoJ. The other stuff, like Cohen's financial chicanery and the campaign finance crimes and whatever else were handed off to other authorities.

      Despite the picture that Trump was painting as this being an open ended witch hunt looking at anything and everything to bring him down, it very much was not. Which is both good and bad for him, good since he has nothing more to worry about from Mueller prosecuting him or more of his associates and only has to worry about what he has already collected and put in his report, bad in that any other issues that were outside Mueller's scope are distinctly unresolved by the closure of the special counsel's investigation as well as any potential political fallout that occurs when more details are released.

    2. Re:"any matters that arise", "any federal crime" by raymorris · · Score: 1

      We may be arguing about an intermediate thing, while we could agree on the conclusion. Perhaps I'm even misunderstanding your point, getting hung up on how you get there.

      We can agree, I think that the end of the Mueller investigation isn't necessarily the end of potential trouble for people associated with Trump. If that's your point, agreed.

      Thanks for the Rosenstein quote.

      I may be splitting hairs on something that doesn't much matter. You mentioned "other stuff, like Cohen's financial chicanery and the campaign finance crimes and whatever else were handed off to other authorities." According to Mueller, he investigated that to a certain point, then farmed out the prosecution to other parts of DOJ. So it wouldn't be accurate to say "Mueller wasn't allowed to look at campaign finance", for example.

    3. Re:"any matters that arise", "any federal crime" by Cederic · · Score: 1

      Despite the picture that Trump was painting as this being an open ended witch hunt looking at anything and everything to bring him down, it very much was not.

      Then why did the summary of all things state that they couldn't find anything to hang on Trump but that they don't think he's innocent anyway.

      There are 350 million other Americans they didn't find anything to hang on either but they didn't all get name checked as "probably not innocent, we just can't prove it".

    4. Re:"any matters that arise", "any federal crime" by DarkOx · · Score: 1

      You can't argue with these people. They will find fault with the results not matter what. Had Muller run down non-Russian crimes himself instead of referring other apparent criminal matters to the rest of the normal DOJ apparatus to deal with they'd be screeching about how Muller did not have enough resources to investigate the Russia angle fully because he was to busy dealing with everything else. Make no mistake the GPP was only going to be satisfied if the report stated Trump was a Russian agent; otherwise he'll use anything as an excuse as to why it does not count.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
  140. LOL Watching you all squirm is fantastic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Keep denying reality, the next time this happens it's going to be amazing.
    You're only hurting yourselves by believing easily refuted bologna from people who deal in nothing but.

  141. Re:Trump's campaign manager and personal lawyer... by Freischutz · · Score: 0, Troll

    Welcome to Fantasy Island. I hope you enjoy your stay.

    Oh, another Trumpkin who thinks Trump is a Jesus like beacon of morality and honesty in a dark swamp of corruption.

  142. Re: Trump's campaign manager and personal lawyer.. by zugmeister · · Score: 0, Troll

    Just to clarify... is he going to prison before or after Jesus comes back? I keep hearing both of these things are just around the corner (and they may be) but somehow they both keep not happening.

  143. That's hilarious. Pachyderms say #nevertrump by raymorris · · Score: 1

    That was funny!

    On a slightly more serious note, #nevertrump is traditional pachyderms.

    Trump is the opposite of family values, of slow steady wins the race, making careful, incremental changes, etc. He mobilized a different group of voters, neither red not blue - including, for example, many members of large unions. Those were traditionally solid Democrat. The largest unions are now officially on record decrying AOC's policy proposals.

    1. Re:That's hilarious. Pachyderms say #nevertrump by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      He mobilized the bunch that wanted:

      Appoint constructionist Supreme Court Justices who can read the Constitution
      Stop selling out the US to globalism
      Stop/reduce illegal immigration
      Roll back SJW agenda in government
      Stop getting the US into new wars every few years

      We can put up with a pretty big asshole if he succeeds in accomplishing those things. If Clinton had won, we would have had the opposite of the above AND a huge asshole in charge.

    2. Re:That's hilarious. Pachyderms say #nevertrump by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He sold out the US to cronyism, he put liars and perjurers on the Court who will be removed, he flinched with China, he flinched and pandered to NK, he kissed Putin's dick on live television... Trump is a traitor and will hang. FTFY.

  144. Re: Trump's campaign manager and personal lawyer.. by ravenshrike · · Score: 1

    No, they decided it wasn't even enough to rise to ham sandwich culpability. As in, wouldn't even pass a grand jury smell test.

  145. Good point. Still, Clinton denied it by raymorris · · Score: 2

    That true, Flowers came forward on her own.

    My point was that Clinton tried to deny it. Even after the tapes were played on national television. Over and over, for decades, various women accused him of sexual assault, sexual harassment, and other similar behavior, and Bill always put on that smile and tried to play completely innocent.

    Trump doesn't hide that he's - what the word? A bit of a perv? He and Bill Clinton would get along together well, especially in the company of some Colombian prostitutes. Clinton got busted for lying about it, Trump got some heat for bragging about it.

    1. Re:Good point. Still, Clinton denied it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Clinton may be an actual rapist. Christopher Hitchens certainly thought so. The hypocrisy of the dems on Trumps "grab 'em by the pussy" remark compared to that beggars belief.

    2. Re:Good point. Still, Clinton denied it by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      He and Bill Clinton would get along together well

      He and Bill did get along together well.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  146. Re:Trump's campaign manager and personal lawyer... by ravenshrike · · Score: 1

    The truly amusing thing about Cohen is that it's pretty clear that either he's a pathological liar or Adam Schiff performed some serious amounts of witness tampering prior to his second appearance before Congress.

  147. Re: Trump's campaign manager and personal lawyer.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh, another sky screamer who thinks if he wishes hard enough the big bad orange man will go away to jail and a new age will be ushered in where gays are put upon a pedestal, free speech is outlawed when they disagree with popular opinion and nobody owns guns.

  148. Re:Mueller = a (sub)HUMAN FAIL, lol... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ranting? He's gloating you project what you are fatass incel virgin and your type lost again as you stalk him like a crazo you are by your "brave" (sarcasm) ac posts.

  149. Re: Trump's campaign manager and personal lawyer.. by Freischutz · · Score: 1

    Oh, another sky screamer who thinks if he wishes hard enough the big bad orange man will go away to jail and a new age will be ushered in where gays are put upon a pedestal, free speech is outlawed when they disagree with popular opinion and nobody owns guns.

    Gays? Another Christian Conservative Trumpkin who thinks everybody else is as insecure in their sexual orientation as he is.

  150. Btw you might want to educate some law professors by raymorris · · Score: 1

    Btw if that's the case, you might want to educate some Stanford law professors and former federal prosecutorsnwho have been writing about the investigation.

    David Alan Sklansky, a former federal prosecutor, is the Stanley Morrison Professor of Law at Stanford Law School. He is also a faculty co-director of the Stanford Criminal Justice Center (SCJC). In his article "Mueller Charges Trump Campaign Officials", Sklansky writes:

    " The two men were charged with tax evasion, money laundering, false statements, and conspiracy. ... All of these charges stem from the ongoing investigation led by special counsel Robert Mueller".

    I don't suppose by chance you get all of your information from CNN? If so, is that intentional, you want to hear a fairy tale, or accidental?

  151. Re: Trump's campaign manager and personal lawyer.. by Billly+Gates · · Score: 1

    Nope. Mueller explicitly stated no evidence of collusion and would not draw charges.

  152. Re:Trump's campaign manager and personal lawyer... by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

    Obstruction is still very much in play. It was obstruction that brought down Nixon. And need I point out that this is not Mueller's report, rather this is Trump's hired gun's spin of Mueller's report. Let's see what Mueller has to say about that when Congress subpoenas him.

    Obvious troll mod with agenda is obvious.

    --
    When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
  153. Re:Trump's campaign manager and personal lawyer... by ClickOnThis · · Score: 4, Insightful

    But we have the AG's summary.

    Which is inadequate. We need to see the full report. And congress agreed unanimously.

    It's pretty clear from the summary, nobody in Trump's campaign was colluding with the Russians. This clearly includes the Trump Tower meeting.

    Then why did Trump and his associates keep lying about it? That certainly didn't help him look innocent.

    I'll accept what Mueller found out. But we need to see the full report.

    I suppose you could invent a wild conspiracy theory to explain Mueller's report... After all it seems this whole thing was based on a conspiracy theory, so why not go whole hog?

    Trump has himself to blame for the conspiracy theories. See above.

    --
    If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
  154. Nope, not a crime by SuperKendall · · Score: 2, Insightful

    yes, it's a crime despite

    Given that Mueller spent two years and tens of millions of dollars checking on things like that with no resulting charges against anyone, the entire U.S. government (including a bevy of Democratic lawyers who fervently hate Trump) very obviously agrees it's not a crime.

    You've going to have to come up with something better than a "townhall.com" link yourself, since the evidence YOU posted was (A) Jack and (B) Squat, hey emphasis on the "Jack" since you obviously spent the last two years jerking off to the thought of Trump wearing Prison Orange. Sad.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Nope, not a crime by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yes, it's a crime despite

      Given that Mueller spent two years and tens of millions of dollars checking on things like that with no resulting charges against anyone, the entire U.S. government (including a bevy of Democratic lawyers who fervently hate Trump) very obviously agrees it's not a crime.

      You've going to have to come up with something better than a "townhall.com" link yourself, since the evidence YOU posted was (A) Jack and (B) Squat, hey emphasis on the "Jack" since you obviously spent the last two years jerking off to the thought of Trump wearing Prison Orange. Sad.

      What a back-handed defense of the Mueller investigation. Obvious troll.

    2. Re:Nope, not a crime by Rob+Y. · · Score: 1

      Does it require a prosecutable crime for the public to have a right to know how the electoral process was compromised? What was the crime behind the Benghazi hearings again?

      Interestingly, it's your "why spend the money to investigate when we don't think we can convict" approach that let most of Wall Street off the hook for bringing down the economy in 2008 and then using Government bailouts to award themselves bonuses. Maybe you were happy about that too? I wasn't - and it was Obama's Justice department making that calculation. But at least that calculation was made in the interest of restoring confidence in the economic system - not in the interest of protecting a President who stood to have his slimy behavior exposed by the investigation.

      It seems that a big segment of our society has the attitude that "sure, Trump is a slimeball, but he's our slimeball". The irony is that those folks support Trump because they think the rest of the Government is corrupt - Democrats and Republicans alike. But, other than the sliminess, what has Trump delivered? More (way more) of the same corruption that his supporters claim to have wanted to burn down the house to stop. Oh sure, there are some polluters and racists, and yes, the anti-abortion and gun crowds that are happy with the results. But certainly the rust belt working class has to be just a tad disappointed...

      --
      Posted from my Android phone. Oh, I can change this? There, that's better...
    3. Re:Nope, not a crime by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Given that Mueller spent two years and tens of millions of dollars checking on things like that with no resulting charges against anyone

      Other than 23 people?

    4. Re:Nope, not a crime by dittbub · · Score: 2

      What world do you live in where the mueller investigation led to no charges?

    5. Re:Nope, not a crime by Topwiz · · Score: 1

      Other than Manafort who was charged with crimes committed before becoming campaign chairman, all the other charges were process crimes (lying to the FBI). In fact, the FBI had investigated him years before but declined to indict him.

      The investigation didn't charge any Americans with crimes committed between the day Trump announced he was running and election day.

  155. Money and power. by WolfgangVL · · Score: 1

    The deck is stacked and every hand is aces. Whole thing is rotten.

    The movies gonna suck too.

    --
    You are being ripped off every second of every day, so that advertisers can help rip you off even more tomorrow.
  156. Re: You are dumb by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Careful there, you should know what they say about those living in glass houses.

  157. Re:Trump's campaign manager and personal lawyer... by quantaman · · Score: 4, Informative

    Actually, Manafort and Cohen both been convicted of cheating on their taxes in cases unconnected to Trump and his campaign.

    Cohen was convicted of making an excessive contribution to the Trump campaign, "for the principle purpose of influencing the election," at the request of Individual 1.

    No, Cohen ADMITTED to this, he was not tried in court. He entered into a Plea bargain deal, he wasn't convicted in court so nobody had to prove he violated campaign finance law. I know there is little practical difference for Cohen, but there IS a difference here.

    Further, the "Russian Collusion" angel has nothing at all to do with Cohen and the campaign finance charges taken up by the Southern District of NY.

    Cohen also plead guilty to tax evasion charges. And a plea bargain is technically a conviction. Yes they didn't have to prove it in court, the evidence was so overwhelming that Cohen would have been a fool to go to trial.

    And the tax charges were ALSO brought by the SDNY.

    See the AC was trying to claim "Cohen's crimes had nothing to do with the campaign", which people called BS because Cohen was convicted of a campaign finance violation.

    So you tried moving the goal posts by claiming that this is a discussion of the Mueller investigation. But then the AC's statement makes no sense because they're referring to tax crimes which happened the SDNY. The only charges that Cohen was convicted from Mueller's office was lying to congress... about the campaign.

    This is just some rhetorical game to make people think that when they hear of "Cohen's crimes" they somehow think it has nothing to do with the campaign. Unfortunately for you the meaningless distinctions that would usually help to confuse people don't actually apply here.

    --
    I stole this Sig
  158. Re:Trump's campaign manager and personal lawyer... by quantaman · · Score: 1

    The Clinton campaign did the same thing. The difference is, we've had 2 years of investigation into the Trump campaign and it was found to not be collusion. Shall we now do the same with the Clinton campaign and the DNC, who financed the dossier which was written by a foreigner, with Russian influences, to damage their opponent? Or is that not collusion?

    Then why didn't they leak that dossier before the election? You know, when it would have actually been useful.

    Funny how none of the Trumpists can never answer that iceberg sized plot hole.

    --
    I stole this Sig
  159. Apologies? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Do you think that people who pushed and hyped the collusion story — a story that has been found to be entirely false — should apologize (or express some sort of regret) for their part is misleading the American people for two years?

    Or is pushing lies about the President ok with rsilvergun?

    1. Re:Apologies? by Highdude702 · · Score: 1

      Well he constantly lies about Obama calling him a center-right president. So there's that.

  160. Let the cover-up games begin! by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 0

    AG and DAG are both Trump appointees
    "We didn't find any reason to indict Trump, LOL"

    "We need to sift through the report to decide what can and can't be released to the public and congress"
    Yeah, sure, what a shocker that is. Let the cover-up of the report begin! Oh look, a puppy! EVERYONE LOOK AT THE PUPPY!

    Ball's in your court, House Democrats. Don't fumble it.

    **********

    Oh, and by the way: If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it's a duck.
    Organized crime bosses are masters of keeping their own hands squeaky-clean, while getting their underlings to take the fall for them.
    So I believe it is with Donald Trump. Get Cohen and Manafort and Flynn and whoever else is under you to do the dirty work, get their hands dirty, leaving the hands of The Boss clean.

    1. Re:Let the cover-up games begin! by EmagGeek · · Score: 1

      "Oh, and by the way: If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it's a duck." ..... except in the US justice system, where you still have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that it is a duck, even if it really looks like one.

    2. Re:Let the cover-up games begin! by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

      Continue missing the overall point if it makes you happy or serves your chosen narrative, I guess.

    3. Re:Let the cover-up games begin! by EmagGeek · · Score: 1

      I have no dog in this fight. The fact remains however that, regardless of the fact that you are personally convinced he is a duck, there are laws in place to protect people from your torch and pitchfork psychosis.

    4. Re:Let the cover-up games begin! by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

      ..torch and pitchfork psychosis
      You sure sound like you picked a side to me, at least all the way back in 2016. Care to deny that?

      Are you trolling me? You might be. But I guess I'll feed you anyway: The son-of-a-bitch surrounds himself with criminals and ne'er-do-wells; that's the 'duck' part.
      Furthermore, as previously stated, he sure seems to act like a mob boss: get your underlings to do the dirty work, so your hands stay clean. They go to jail for you, out of loyalty, so you don't have to go to jail. Theoretical? Sure. Probable? I believe it is. I'm far from alone in that, too.
      If you really want to just throw up your hands and put on a MAGA hat, then it is also my opinion that you're gullible. But I don't think the son-of-a-bitch belongs in the Whitehouse, never did, and I'll cheer when he finally leaves. It'll probably take until I'm dead of old age to repair all the damage him and his cronies have done, but with any luck it can all be repaired.

      You've already made your opinions clear enough so now I invite you to not bother responding with your insults towards me for my beliefs and opinions. You're not going to change my mind and I really don't care about your opinions either so just don't bother.

    5. Re:Let the cover-up games begin! by EmagGeek · · Score: 1

      I don't care if you change your mind or not. Torch and Pitchfork Psychosis is a real thing. It is when you believe in someone's guilt in spite of overwhelming evidence against it. You "just know" they're guilty despite there being no evidence to support your belief. You are out to get them and you don't care about facts.

      That is the mental trap you have set yourself in.

      For the record, I think Trump is a despicable human being who doesn't deserve to be President, and I was absolutely shocked when I woke up the morning after the election. However, his being a despicable human being completely absent of any moral compass does not make him guilty of collusion or obstruction. But, you probably won't believe this because you have already decided that I am the enemy, in spite of the fact that I have thus far offered you zero evidence to suggest that I am a Trump supporter.

      The special counsel, an avowed Democrat and Hillary supporter, and therefore very highly motivated by his own bias, spent two years and 50 million dollars trying his best to find a single shred of evidence that Trump worked with a foreign state to steal the election or even get in the way of the investigation, and he couldn't find it.

      Personally I think he wasted far too much time chasing after Stormy Daniels payments (which were not illegal in the slightest) and his other immoral and patently disgusting, but again not illegal, behaviors, when he should have spent 100% of his effort on the main objective of the special counsel's authorization: Russian Collusion. But, perhaps he knew early on that there was no collusion and had some money to spend, so did so chasing these red herrings. Who knows?

      But, I digress.

      Let me ask. What damage do you propose Trump has done that will take a generation to correct? Please give an honest, objective answer supported by verifiable fact, if you can.

  161. Re:Trump's campaign manager and personal lawyer... by quantaman · · Score: 1

    How this got turned into a massive conspiracy and fantasy about Trump conspiring with Putin says a lot about the effectiveness of brainwashing by propaganda. Unplug yourself.

    Russia also started trying to hack Clinton's office the same day.

    Yeah, it sounds like a joke, but that's a pretty big coincidence.

    It's also evidence that Trump, who famously blurts out incriminating things, had some knowledge or influence over Russia's attacks. Maybe he was giving them a poke to get started, maybe he knew they were starting and was thinking about it so much that it came out in a joke.

    Yeah Mueller didn't find evidence of collusion. But all you need is a couple senior people using WhatsApp who know how to delete chat history and you wouldn't have any evidence.

    --
    I stole this Sig
  162. Re:Trump's campaign manager and personal lawyer... by Kohath · · Score: 0

    Then why didn't they leak that dossier before the election? You know, when it would have actually been useful.

    Used for what? To make news? Because the story would read like this:

    "Someone you never heard of has just given us a file containing a bunch of innuendo and amazing claims with no supporting facts. It's about one of the Presidential candidates. That candidate has denied the allegations in the file."

    Funny how none of the Trumpists can never answer that iceberg sized plot hole.

    Funny how you guys make up stories and decide to believe they're true, and then when they are proven false, you just make up new stories. The real world and what really occurs never seem to matter.

  163. Re: Trump's campaign manager and personal lawyer. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Deja vu. Very Clinton-esque concluding that bad stuff was done, but weâ(TM)re not going to prosecute.

  164. Re:Trump's campaign manager and personal lawyer... by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

    It's stupid as shit considering that the parties today have nothing in common with the parties of the civil war era other than the names. Look at which party hosts all of the neo-confederates and white nationalist apologists today. It's far more informative than historical-semantic wordplay.

    --
    "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  165. Re:Trump's campaign manager and personal lawyer... by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 0

    It's not the GOP. They tend to condemn Nazis and supremacists. Democrats and the Left, meanwhile, gladly endorse and celebrate them provided they are of the right race/gender/political bent (thus doubling up on their supremacy, hatred, and discrimination).

    --
    Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
  166. Re:Trump's campaign manager and personal lawyer... by quantaman · · Score: 2

    Then why didn't they leak that dossier before the election? You know, when it would have actually been useful.

    Used for what? To make news? Because the story would read like this:

    "Someone you never heard of has just given us a file containing a bunch of innuendo and amazing claims with no supporting facts. It's about one of the Presidential candidates. That candidate has denied the allegations in the file."

    Soo.... you claim that the dossier, that has generated massive news coverage, wasn't leaked because the press would find it uninteresting???

    To which I repeat the question... why write a fake dossier to win an election if you're not going to leak it?

    Funny how none of the Trumpists can never answer that iceberg sized plot hole.

    Funny how you guys make up stories and decide to believe they're true, and then when they are proven false, you just make up new stories. The real world and what really occurs never seem to matter.

    In other words your "fake dossier" narrative is so weak you didn't even bothering to make a story.

    Now here's my story. The dossier was a legitimate and entirely normal attempt at opposition research, performed by a former intelligence official. The campaigns who funded the research, both Republicans and Democrats, hoped to learn how to campaign against Trump, and to find provable dirt they could use against him.

    The dossier didn't have any provable dirt, at least not anything juicer than was already publicly known about Trump. But it was very unusual in that it had evidence (but not proof) that he was compromised and coordinating with the Russian government. Republicans and Democrats both found this concerning enough that they forwarded it to the FBI, who was already investigating the Trump campaign for collusion.

    No one, Republican, Democrat, or FBI, leaked it to the press during the campaign because that wasn't its purpose, and since it could be traced back to the campaign who paid for it and could backfire.

    So that's my story, one that makes sense and is consistent with the evidence.

    --
    I stole this Sig
  167. Re: Trump's campaign manager and personal lawyer. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You two fell into a spitting match again, but riddle me this: even if there actually was a collusion, would the IS in A admit it?

    The answer is no, it is too big loss of face for the Washington DC elite to swallow.

  168. Re: Trump's campaign manager and personal lawyer.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So why is he in prison? "No convictionâ means no sentence, yet he's doing time.

    You are a bit on the dim side, my little Repugnican shite.

  169. Re:Trump's campaign manager and personal lawyer... by quantaman · · Score: 1

    The truly amusing thing about Cohen is that it's pretty clear that either he's a pathological liar or Adam Schiff performed some serious amounts of witness tampering prior to his second appearance before Congress.

    He's a slimebag, he was a slimebag before he started working for Trump, he was a slimebag when he worked for Trump, and he remains a slimebag after flipping on Trump.

    It's hard not to cheer for someone when they're taking effective shots at your enemies, that's pretty much the basis of Trump's appeal, but he hasn't suddenly become a virtuous and honest man.

    --
    I stole this Sig
  170. Re:Trump's campaign manager and personal lawyer... by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

    Maybe because right up until Election night, the Democrats were 93% certain to win the whole thing? Why use it and open up the can-of-worms, especially since it did its job to get the FISA warrants to spy in the first place...

    --
    Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
  171. Re: Trump's campaign manager and personal lawyer.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    ToughLoveTroll, dude you just argued with yourself and called yourself "a troll".

    Those liberal tears must really be burning your eyes.

  172. Re:Trump's campaign manager and personal lawyer... by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

    The campaigns who funded the research, both Republicans and Democrats, hoped to learn how to campaign against Trump

    That is a lie, and you know it. It was funded by the Clinton campaign and the DNC, and the Washington Free Beacon - a new site, NOT a campaign - hired Fusion GPS for some intel but it was not the Steele Dossier.

    Quit lying.

    --
    Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
  173. Re:And two years of investigations found none of i by rtb61 · · Score: 1

    The new summary to follow that summary, everyone should be able to guess what that one will be. A summary of costs of the Trump investigation, what the tax payers paid for and whom they paid it to. Who earned what and what were their political party affiliations. The greater the cost, the worse it will lock for the corporate democracts, how much money they wasted and who profited and by how much did they personally profit, every single payment and every possible costs, all audited and put out to the public.

    Make no mistake it will look extremely bad and force an investigation of the investigation and you can fucking bet, that investigation will uncover a whole bunch of conspiratorial crimes, attempts to pervert justice, that will result in prosecution (this scam was an all or nothing gambit and they will have broken laws trying to push it through, lots of them).

    --
    Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
  174. I don't beTweet it! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's over 140 characters. Can't be true.

  175. Re: Trump's campaign manager and personal lawyer.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Didn't obstruct?

    That's weird considering the musical chairs of resignations and appointments involved around the investigation. Trump attacking anyone who suddenly didn't align with him anymore during the investigation and his unwillingness to provide 80 some-odd documents relevant and requested by the investigation.

  176. Re:And two years of investigations found none of i by Uberbah · · Score: 1

    You seem to pretty clearly be misunderstanding Mueller's job and mandate. Mueller had an explicit and narrow mandate to examine particular issues with the Russian efforts in the 2016 election, issues that directly arose from that in particular obstruction of justice, and a couple other specific things that Rosenstein particularly assigned to his team like Manafort's shady finances and associated dealings with Ukrainians. Mueller's job was not to go after Trump for anything and everything he could find

    You seem to be ignoring the fact that many of Mueller's indictments and convictions came from events that had nothing whatsoever to do with Trump and/or the 2016 campaign and/or Russia. Like Flynn's conviction for lying to the FBI - not for collusion, but for trying to get Russia's support on an Israeli issue and then asking Russia not to retaliate against new sanctions. Or Manafort for ten year old financial crimes.

    If Mueller could do that, there's no reason he couldn't have investigated Trump for opening new businesses in Saudi Arabia while running for president, and then giving them a massive arms deal as president.

  177. Re:Trump's campaign manager and personal lawyer... by Kohath · · Score: 1

    Soo.... you claim that the dossier, that has generated massive news coverage, wasn't leaked because the press would find it uninteresting???

    It wasn't news. Unsubstantiated allegations aren't news. Buzzfeed published it. They have zero standards.

    Read Rathergate for the last time someone tried a similar thing before an election. It ended several careers.

    To which I repeat the question... why write a fake dossier to win an election if you're not going to leak it?

    He wrote it because the Hilary campaign paid him to write it. Maybe they thought they could use it. Maybe they thought they could get an investigation started and the investigators would find something real — they didn't.

    Hopefully we will hear testimony under oath about it.

  178. Re:Trump's campaign manager and personal lawyer... by Uberbah · · Score: 1

    Russia also started trying to hack Clinton's office the same day Yeah, it sounds like a joke, but that's a pretty big coincidence.

    Because it neeeever would have occurred to a foreign intelligence agency to hack an unsecured treasure trove of classified information until Trump made a joke about it on TV.

    It's also evidence that Trump, who famously blurts out incriminating things, had some knowledge or influence over Russia's attacks.

    As much as a photo of Obama eating shawarma is evidence that he really was a Muslim born in Kenya, sure.

  179. Re:Trump's campaign manager and personal lawyer... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You know violating campaign finance laws is just a fine, right? Like when Obama did it he just paid a fine: https://www.politico.com/story/2013/01/obama-2008-campaign-fined-375000-085784

  180. Re:Trump's campaign manager and personal lawyer... by Uberbah · · Score: 1

    Read Rathergate

    And now you can read the problems with Rathergate:

    1) Memos were never proven to forgeries
    2) CBS did verify the memos - for the accuracy of their content
    3) So even if the memos were forged copies, the forgeries were true

    But what makes it all a farce, is this standard was applied to Dan Rather, and only Dan Rather. None of the editors and reporters that spent years parroting CIA talking points on Iraq as fact, without bothering to do any verification of what they had been told, lost their jobs. And if the media doesn't bother to higher fact-checkers, they sure as hell don't hire typography experts to examine everything they've been handed.

  181. Re:Trump's campaign manager and personal lawyer... by owlaf · · Score: 1

    I know his businesses had been rather rocky well before the election, but there has seemed to be an affect by the negative association that has caused an affect more recently. One of the journalist described his business model as getting others to put in, and he extracts as much as he can. He didn't care that they failed, he made money by removing it from the business. Seems like some form of embezzling to me. His more recent success was far more licensing his name, with all the negative press since in office that might dry up. I understand international real estate is a good way to laundry money, it is very difficult to have successful prosecutions.

  182. Re:Trump's campaign manager and personal lawyer... by Uberbah · · Score: 1

    Nope. Still a total fail on your part here, Rooster. Flaming racist sacks of crap like Jesse Helms and Strom Thurmond may have started out their political careers as Dixiecrats, but like their brethren, they went to their graves as die-hard Republicans. Your veiled attempts to equate BLM (or whever) the Klan is another pile.

    Just stick to pointing out how full of shit Democrats have been on Russiagate for the last two years, something that is based on facts.

  183. Re:Trump's campaign manager and personal lawyer... by Kohath · · Score: 1

    Which leads to the questions: are you just dumb? Do you not understand how you sound when you talk about "true" forgeries?

    You don't sound honest. You don't sound like a sane person. You don't sound like someone an honest or sane person would take seriously.

    You sound like someone talking about how NASA faked the moon landing.

  184. Re:Trump's campaign manager and personal lawyer... by Uberbah · · Score: 1

    You mean the dossier that the GOP initially funded and then abandoned when it became clear that Trump was going to win the nomination? That the DNC provided funding for only after the GOP abandoned it?

    Dembots keep saying that as if it's supposed to mean something. It doesn't mean anything. That Trump's primary election opponents were also sniffing around for dirt does nothing whatsoever to change the fact that Hillary is in fact guilty of what Trump has been baselessly accused of doing: colluding with foreign intelligence agents to swing an election.

  185. Re: Trump's campaign manager and personal lawyer.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Quit lying to yourself, the "Russia collusion" lie that the DNC came up with to deflect attention from them snatching a defeat out of the jaws of a certain victory is so deeply ingrained in your skulls that you'll be blaming Mueller in a few weeks.

  186. Re: Trump's campaign manager and personal lawyer. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's actually better. Back then it was a surprise to everyone. This is a surprise to nobody, except moronic leftists who have no capacity for critical thinking. They deserve to be stomped into the ground more than your average retarded Democrat voter who has just been tricked all of their lives.

    This is suicide-grade winning. There will literally be people turning off Rachel Maddow tonight, then putting a rope around their neck.

  187. Re:Trump's campaign manager and personal lawyer... by quantaman · · Score: 1

    The campaigns who funded the research, both Republicans and Democrats, hoped to learn how to campaign against Trump

    That is a lie, and you know it. It was funded by the Clinton campaign and the DNC, and the Washington Free Beacon - a new site, NOT a campaign - hired Fusion GPS for some intel but it was not the Steele Dossier.

    Quit lying.

    Not remembering a secondary detail isn't a lie.

    The Washington Free Beacon wasn't affiliated with a specific campaign but they were "anti-Trump", and they were paying for opposition research on Trump.

    Steele didn't show up until after the DNC started paying the bills. But he was hired because the research initially funded by the Beacon, and later by the DNC, picked up evidence of Trump/Russia connections.

    Maybe because right up until Election night, the Democrats were 93% certain to win the whole thing? Why use it and open up the can-of-worms

    Really? Not even when Comey re-opened the email investigation days before the election?

    Any why create a fake dossier when there were so many legitimate Trump controversies to dig into? Instead of a story line that keeps supplying dirt and hurting Trump (ie, TrumpU) you end up with a story line that fizzles out with no evidence and discredits all your legitimate dirt.

    , especially since it did its job to get the FISA warrants to spy in the first place...

    Uhhh, I won't accuse you of lying... but surely you now remember that Carter Page was first subject to a FISA warrant in 2014. He was a target again in 2016 because he kept having contacts with Russian Intelligence recruiters.

    --
    I stole this Sig
  188. Re: Trump's campaign manager and personal lawyer.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "We fucking hate the kikes and are openly antisemitic, B-b-but Trump told a mean joke once which excuses us, so I'm going to snivel and whine claiming whataboutism, while engaging in whataboutism."
    -You, circa 2019

  189. Re:Trump's campaign manager and personal lawyer... by kenh · · Score: 1

    Trump used his money to payoff his mistress, the campaign wasn't involved.

    John Edwards paid off his pregnant mistress while his wife was dying of cancer, all during his Presidential campaign, and SCOTUS said it was NOT a campaign finance violation.

    --
    Ken
  190. Re:Trump's campaign manager and personal lawyer... by quantaman · · Score: 1

    Russia also started trying to hack Clinton's office the same day Yeah, it sounds like a joke, but that's a pretty big coincidence.

    Because it neeeever would have occurred to a foreign intelligence agency to hack an unsecured treasure trove of classified information until Trump made a joke about it on TV.

    It's also evidence that Trump, who famously blurts out incriminating things, had some knowledge or influence over Russia's attacks.

    As much as a photo of Obama eating shawarma is evidence that he really was a Muslim born in Kenya, sure.

    I said evidence, not proof.

    We already have Papadopolous, a Trump campaign member, knowing that Russia had stolen DNC emails before wikileaks had ever released them.

    That's proof that Trump's campaign knew that Russia was stealing emails from their opponents.

    Now Trump is talking about Russia attacking a specific target the same day that Russia attacks that target.

    Yes, unlike Birtherism that does count as actual evidence that Trump had inside knowledge that a hack was going to happen.

    It's not proof, but it's sure as hell evidence.

    --
    I stole this Sig
  191. Re: Trump's campaign manager and personal lawyer.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes, you fucking moron, they released a summary saying that the special counsel found no collusion, when in actuality they're just about to announce the indictments and really found shitloads of collusion...

    You people are fucking insane. You're embarrassing yourself.

    You lost. It's over. You have two options: Admit defeat and stop being a fool, or kill yourself.

    I suggest the latter.

  192. Re: Trump's campaign manager and personal lawyer. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Eh - if he is innocent getting rid of shills that hate you seems pretty reasonable.

  193. Re:Trump's campaign manager and personal lawyer... by kenh · · Score: 2

    On the other hand, if a campaign co-ordinates with foreigners to engage in activities aimed at influencing an election (such as, oh say, hacking your opponent's email servers) then that is collusion.

    Yeah, but Mueller stated, and Barr reported, that they found NO evidence (zip, nada, zilch) evidence that anyone in the Trump campaign ever coordinated anything with the Russians, despite the Russian's repeated explicit attempts to do just that.

    And if a foreign government handed a campaign unsolicited information about its opponent, then that would be an illegal campaign contribution

    But if you pay for the information from the same foreign government it's OK?

    --
    Ken
  194. Sorry faggot, that's just 1 crime -of hundreds lol by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Actually it's still an 'in kind' contribution and yes, it's a crime despite your "townhall.com" link, lol. Sorry ugly Colorado incel faggot, Trump dies in prison either way.

    That's just one out of hundreds of crimes he's guilty of, and will die in prison for. You already lost this, lol. "Townhall.com" isn't even a news source, but it certainly doesn't know shit about the law either apparently lol.

    Morons.

  195. Re:Trump's campaign manager and personal lawyer... by bongey · · Score: 1

    Just give it up, the Russia nonsense is dead

  196. Re:Show me the man and I’ll find you the cri by kenh · · Score: 2, Insightful

    37 indictments, 6 guilty please, and one conviction. That doesn't sound like a fail to me.

    "please"?

    So a detective, driving to a murder scene, stops and writes someone a speeding ticket. The Detective never closes the murder case - that's a fail. Mueller was investigating collusion and obstruction of justice, he found none of either - so yes, fail.

    If you want to talk about failure, look at the R's obsessive investigations of Hillary before the 2016 election. E-mails? zero indictments.

    Take a look at the folks that got immunity in the email case, that explains no convictions.

    Benghazi? zero indictments.

    Congratulations, incompetence isn't a crime.

    --
    Ken
  197. Re: Trump's campaign manager and personal lawyer.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    people using WhatsApp who know how to delete chat history and you wouldn't have any evidence.

    Lol. You must believe in Santa Claus and the tooth fairy, too.

  198. Re:Show me the man and I’ll find you the cri by bongey · · Score: 1

    Ok can the DNC troll just leave.

  199. Re:Trump is elected in 2020 either way. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    MAGA. Trump in 2020.

    d888888b d8888b. db . .db .88b, d88. d8888b.
      ~ 88 ~' 88 `8D 88 . .88 88'YbdP`88 88, `8D
      . 88 . 88oobY' 88 . .88 88. 88 .88 88oodD'
      . 88 . 88`8b . 88 . .88 88. 88 .88 88
      . 88 . 88 `88. 88b_ d88 88. 88 .88 88
      . YP . 88 . YD ~Y8888P' YP. YP .YP 88

  200. Re:Trump's campaign manager and personal lawyer... by ravenshrike · · Score: 1

    There's a difference between being an honest man(Not that I think the vast majority of people at that level of politics or money are honest) and colluding with another country or in the Cohen case the only motive for the payoff being politics. Or Trump being stupid enough to directly order him to do so. On the other hand, given his apparently pathological lying tendencies, I can completely believe that Cohen would have used the cheapest and scummiest means at his disposal to accomplish anything he was asked to do. Ask yourself this, do you believe Trump had never paid off a woman to keep silent about sex prior to the election? Because unless the answer is yes, than paying off Daniels was not a crime. It is only if the only reason he had any payments made was because of the election that it becomes a campaign finance violation.

  201. Re: Trump's campaign manager and personal lawyer.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sorry, the summary says the counsel deferred to AG and Rosenstein on whether there was enough to prosecute, not that there "was no collusion" - Mueller never said that, sorry bitch. Trump hangs for his other proven crimes either way.

    You lose either way.

  202. Re:Trump's campaign manager and personal lawyer... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Actually Mueller did not say that, he said there was collusion but it wasn't chargeable at that time - presumably because Trump is in office, and Mueller works for the AG. Congress can still charge him with it, and will do so.

  203. Re:Trump's campaign manager and personal lawyer... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No one could prove the originals were forgeries because the originals were burned. Imagine that standard for criminal investigations: fire in the CSI lab destroys evidence means the accused must be convicted.

  204. Re:Trump's campaign manager and personal lawyer... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fucking dolt AC... CNN reports:

    No collusion: Mueller did not find Donald Trump's campaign or associates conspired with Russia, Barr wrote.

    There Was No Collusion. Zero. Nada. You're a fucking dolt. Go back to weep with Rachel Maddow and watch Chrissy Matthews piss his quivering legs, you ignorant prick...

  205. Re:Trump's campaign manager and personal lawyer... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Trump has not been found innocent of any charge, including collusion which isn't even a charge. The fact is Trump dies in prison either way, for his many hundreds of crimes. There's nothing Barr can do about it once he's gone.

        Trump dies in prison, the system works.

  206. Sorry, traitor Drumpftard, you don't read well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Trump has not been found innocent of any charge, including collusion which isn't even a charge. The fact is Trump dies in prison either way, for his many hundreds of crimes. There's nothing Barr can do about it once he's gone.

    Trump dies in prison, the system works.

  207. Where's the beef? by mnemotronic · · Score: 1

    I never understood the focus on Trump by the media and the less astute. For me the investigation was to determine if there was Russian interference in an American election and, if so, who / what / when / where / why / how. I want to know details of interference by one or more foreign states. Was it technical or social? From what IP addresses? Who were the leaders and who were the worker bees? Names, pictures, addresses and telephone numbers please. Not that it will change the outcome -- just for future reference. I can see how the President would want to make the investigation all about himself. Donald Trump's nature is to make everything all about Donald Trump. It's called promoting the brand. That's his job and at least he takes that seriously. Invent some bad guys and it also becomes defending the brand. The media and an army of roving loons comically chase after his admittedly skillful twitter misdirections like rabid weasels.

    --
    The Russians have won. They have made the world a cesspool of distrust, greed, fear and hate.
    1. Re:Where's the beef? by Gilgaron · · Score: 1

      You can look into the public indictments of various Russians in the investigation. I suppose for the rest of your details it'll depend on the whole report being released.

    2. Re:Where's the beef? by k6mfw · · Score: 1

      Instead of looking for collusion, look at business practices such as real estate developments in Russia and borrowing money from Russian banks. Not illegal but doesn't seem proper dealing with people from a nation that will irk people processing your security clearance if you did the same (unless you are a WH staffer). Also suspicious dealing with a country that we may be going to war with.

      --
      mfwright@batnet.com
    3. Re:Where's the beef? by Topwiz · · Score: 1

      The leader of the main group of trolls was the owner of Putin's favorite restaurant. He was doing it to impress Putin.

  208. Re:And two years of investigations found none of i by acrimonious+howard · · Score: 1

    You've pointed out that after years of investigations, they've not found evidence of Trump commiting tax evasion, no campaign finance crimes like AOC and Bernie, there's not even evidence of him obstructing justice - you almost ALWAYS get obstructing justice if you investigate someone long enough. So many things they were looking for and they found none of it.

    If you include foreign nationals, the Trump camp has more indictments than any other President regardless of party except Nixon. And we're only 2 years in.

    Trump admitted to firing the lead investigator, specifically because of this Russia issue. I don't understand how Mueller decided that wasn't obstruction of justice (or was he saying sure, but there's not enough evidence to prosecute and win the case?). But then I realize there were 3 people involved in this decision, and they were all appointed by Trump himself (Barr, Rosenstein, Mueller). Hrm. Mueller didn't even interview the subject of the investigation (after what he admitted to). How can you come to the conclusion the accused is innocent without even interviewing them? Whatever. The point is, the Trump camp has more indictments than any other President in the last 40 years. And we're only 2 years in. This investigation was not fruitless by any stretch of the imagination.

  209. Democrats' problem with predictions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Democrats in Washington keep telling us wait until xyz, because they are certain that event xyz will work out the way they think it will.

    In 2009-2010, Democrats were in charge of both houses of congress with a filibuster-proof majority in the senate and president Obama in the White House. Instead of passing gun control, environmental, and LGBT rights laws, Dems kept saying, "We'll do those things after the midterms." In the 2010 midterms, the Tea Party took control and the Dems were no longer in a position to pass much of anything.

    In 2016, Obama's nominee for the supreme court was blocked by Mitch McConnell. Dems kept saying, "It's OK, we'll try the nomination again after Hillary Clinton becomes president." Even though the DNC rigged the primaries for Hillary, she still lost to Trump in the general election. Obama's supreme court nomination was then given to Trump by default.

    In the past two years, Dems in Washington kept saying they wouldn't do much of anything to hold Trump accountable (although they could not do much until they took control of the house at the start of 2019). "Wait for the Mueller report," was their patent response. Now the Mueller report has been submitted, and it for the most part cleared Trump and the family of all crimes related to collusion and obstruction.

    Once again, the Democrats in Washington are left with egg on their faces.

    Democrats: stop making these predictions. Stop conditioning your actions on these predictions. Do the right thing, grow a spine, and hold people accountable no matter what else is going on.

  210. Re: Trump's campaign manager and personal lawyer.. by samdu · · Score: 2

    Deferred to the AG on the subject of obstruction, not collusion. The collusion angle is stated flat out - there was none.

  211. Re: Trump's campaign manager and personal lawyer.. by ClickOnThis · · Score: 1

    So why is he in prison? "No convictionâ means no sentence, yet he's doing time.

    Well, I checked, and you appear to be right. I was misled by another post on this.

    It appears that a conviction is what happens after you have been found guilty. You can be found guilty after a trial by a jury or judge, or you can plead guilty before the trial is over (or even starts.) In either case, you're convicted. Some online comments say the difference is that you can't appeal a guilty plea.

    You are a bit on the dim side, my little Repugnican shite.

    If you took the time to look at my other posts, you'd see I am definitely not a Republican. And please, let's not mock the names of parties, no matter what side you're on. It's needless provocation.

    --
    If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
  212. Re:Trump's campaign manager and personal lawyer... by Aighearach · · Score: 1

    What has Hillary got to do with Uranium One?

    OK, I'm gonna solve. John Kerry, with the Freedom Fries, in the Lincoln Bedroom.

    If it was Hillary with the Uranium One in the Library of Congress then I owe you a beer.

  213. Re:Trump's campaign manager and personal lawyer... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, at least you stopped pretending that Russia did nothing.
    Makes you sound likes like a Putin cock sucker and more like a Trump fan. I'm fine with that.

  214. Re:Trump's campaign manager and personal lawyer... by Boronx · · Score: 1

    I suppose if you did it to further Clinton's campaign, then yeah.

  215. Re:Trump's campaign manager and personal lawyer... by Boronx · · Score: 1

    Really, you think any expenditure for the purposes of furthering a campaign is *not* a campaign expenditure if you also spent the money for another reason?

  216. Re:Trump's campaign manager and personal lawyer... by Boronx · · Score: 1

    Did Edwards pay his mistress not to talk?

  217. Re: Trump's campaign manager and personal lawyer.. by Boronx · · Score: 1

    Trump first supported Nazis, then denounced them, then walked that back, saying denouncing them was his biggest mistake.

  218. Re:Trump's campaign manager and personal lawyer... by Boronx · · Score: 1

    Mueller has already accused Manafort in court of lying about sharing polling data with Russian intelligence.

    Barr's letter is simply not good enough.

  219. Re:Trump's campaign manager and personal lawyer... by Boronx · · Score: 1

    Did they inform the Obama administration? Did they lie to the FBI about it?

  220. Re:Trump's campaign manager and personal lawyer... by Boronx · · Score: 1

    No, it isn't, but you knew that. Whether Clinton's opposition research was burned by Russian intelligence is another matter, but it's not collusion.

  221. Re:Trump's campaign manager and personal lawyer... by Boronx · · Score: 1

    What facts, Barr's "summary" of Republican investigation into their own?

  222. nothing new - typical murica by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They make all the shit themselves then everyone else is guilty for it. Such 'integrity' and 'transparency'. Sickening.

  223. Doesn't conclude but doesn't exonerate? BS! by Chas · · Score: 1

    In a legal system with clearly defined precepts of "Assumption of Innocence"

    An inability to prove the commission of a crime *IS* an exoneration.

    PERIOD!

    Not that it matters.

    So many have falllen to the indoctrination of The Church Of Russiagate". Shit that makes InfoWars stuff look like "The sun came up this morning!"
    And we all know that if reality differs with their dogma of "Orange Man Bad. Orange Man MUST Be Guilty!", then reality is "microaggressing" against their religion.

    And any such microaggression is further proof that there's a conspiracy by "The Far Right Nazis" to "Hide The Truth".

    Meanwhile, all the sane people in the country are wilting from Political Bullshit Fatigue.

    --


    Chas - The one, the only.
    THANK GOD!!!
  224. Are you still hungry for more nothingburgers? by Just+A+Gigolo · · Score: 1

    SJW tears will be flowing.

  225. Is this the *Beacon of Democracy* all about? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Kids...if you're reading...this is not what accountable government looks like. In fact, this is what an out-of-control Deep State looks like: all court intrigue and a colossal circle-jerk for the purpose of...what for all the world looks like...generating a smoke screen in the press to divert attention away from wrong-doing by the very people claiming the mantle of Protectors of the Republic(TM).

    If the United States of America wants to continue to promote Democracy over all others it better starts doing something about the DEEP STATE, which is, in all respect, as bad, ir not worse than the dictatorship the United States of America has been ranting against all these years.

    In other words, are you Americans gonna do something about this?

  226. this IS a shade of grey issue by aepervius · · Score: 1

    Whether a crime was commited may be black and white but the available evidence is always a shade of grey : there may not be enough to convict somebody in spite of a crime. You are conflating the two unduly. Furthermore if for the justice system the evidence were not enough , sometimes due to technicality, that does not mean the general public cannot make such a call. Oj simoson was a murder. He was just not a convicted one. So far from what i saw with cohen manafort and the russian meeting reported, it may not be a high bar enough to convict trump, but it is a high bar enough to condemn him publicly.

    --
    C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
    visit randi.org
  227. Re:Trump's campaign manager and personal lawyer... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Item the first: The SDNY brought charges based on evidence and testimony given to... the Mueller investigation.
    Item the second: Cohen pled to several financial charges, one of which was related to paying off Daniels.
    However, there's a problem here - that's not a crime, including not a campaign finance violation. We know this with certainty because Democrat John Edwards was charged with having his campaign donors pay off his mistress. The charge was laughed out of court.

    So, we have Trump who has a history of paying off mistresses, who did so again (with his own money). But this is supposed to be a campaign finance crime, when someone who had never paid off a mistress before having donors do so for him is not?

    Nah, Cohen pled because the Democrat-run SDNY promised him a lighter sentence if he pled guilty to something involving Trump for political reasons, even if they knew they could never have convicted him of it in court.

    So, no, Cohen was not guilty of anything involving Trump's campaign. It doesn't even look like he was guilty of anything involving Trump's businesses - all his actual crimes were cheating on his own taxes and reporting.

  228. Re:Trump's campaign manager and personal lawyer... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No, Mueller couldn't prove that the Trump Tower meeting was what some people suspected it would be.

  229. Re: Trump's campaign manager and personal lawyer. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You two fell into a spitting match again, but riddle me this: even if there actually was a collusion, would the IS in A admit it?

    The answer is no, it is too big loss of face for the Washington DC elite to swallow.

    No, I’m just trolling him.

  230. Re:Trump's campaign manager and personal lawyer... by Freischutz · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The Clinton campaign did the same thing. The difference is, we've had 2 years of investigation into the Trump campaign and it was found to not be collusion. Shall we now do the same with the Clinton campaign and the DNC, who financed the dossier which was written by a foreigner, with Russian influences, to damage their opponent? Or is that not collusion?

    Eh, no, It was the Republicans who commissioned the 'dossier', the Democrats just picked up where the Republican left off after they decoded Trump was their new god emperor.

  231. Oh you so bitter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Guy I don't like is a poo poo head"

    The good guys won, get over it!

    1. Re:Oh you so bitter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Guy I don't like is a poo poo head"

      The good guys won, get over it!

      What is it with you American conservatives and your veneration for feces? You seem to be obsessed with it, that and inserting colloquial terms for intercourse into your sentences for no apparent reason. Is it some kind of Freudian slip?

  232. Bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You're wrong. You were wrong before. You're holding onto wrong now like a failed loser.

    Cut down the pathetic, will you?

  233. Re:And two years of investigations found none of i by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Mueller's scope did not include financial crimes...

  234. I don't Shareblue spamming here! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't like Mediamatters and shareblue spamming this site?

    Move to a different site!

  235. Re: Trump's campaign manager and personal lawyer. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Reality has a stong Trump winning bias.

  236. Slashdot Posting at Three Times Normal Rate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Since this story was posted, Slashdot editors have been posting stories at about three times the normal rate in an obvious effort to get this thread off the front page, since it is not flattering to Democrats, who by the way have now lost the 2020 election.

    You heard it here first: Trump gets re-elected and the GOP takes back the House and increases its leadership in the Senate.

    The Democrats are so monumentally stupid. They knew from Day 1 that there was no collusion, but they ran with it for the short-term gain of two years of leadership in the House, which they are squandering anyway on pie-in-the-sky leftist bullshit that the last 100 years of history has proved beyond any reasonable doubt does not work at all.

    To put some icing on that humble pie, when a reasonably-minded Democrat DOES come forward with the possibility of running, they attack him because he's not stupid enough for them. Howard Schultz would win in a landslide over Trump and the Democrats assassinated him within hours of his even mentioning a run.

    Stupid. So very stupid. Every last one of them.

  237. The intent of the IRA was to "sow discord" by gotan · · Score: 2

    (Note: IRA = "Internet Research Agency")

    To that end the hysterical reaction to Trump did more for them than Trump himself could have ever done. Also most damaging are identity politics and its polarizing effects. Some of the IRAs (still can't get over that acronym) trolling explicitly took extreme positions in identity politics or used misleading/false information to incite identity subgroups, a good example of this is the expert trolling by "LGBT United":

    https://medium.com/@sue.donym1...

    Note that these actions are not partisan to the "left" or the "right", the intent is to weaken the USA as a whole, to make them less effective in the international arena, to weaken their president and to bog him (or her) down with whatever serves that purpose.

    They needn't have bothered though, because others did their work for them. It is highly questionable that this "Troll factory" with its lean funds really made any change to the bigger picture. Most of the hysterical reaction to Trump, the campaigning for his impeachment by whatever means as well as the extremist identity politics were genuine and didn't need any outside "nudging".

    --
    "By the way if anyone here is in advertising or marketing... kill yourself." -- Bill Hicks
  238. Heard this before, right? by mpercy · · Score: 1

    Here's some more opinions, where some of us noted that the presidential candidate should be in prison at worst, probably fined and stripped of her clearance. But other people (her friends and cronies, mostly) decided to have this other opinion, one which made up elements of the law to suit their opinion...

    "Eight of those chains contained information that was Top Secret at the time they were sent; 36 chains contained Secret information at the time; and eight contained Confidential information, which is the lowest level of classification. Separate from those, about 2,000 additional e-mails were “up-classified” to make them Confidential; the information in those had not been classified at the time the e-mails were sent."

    "Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.

    "For example, seven e-mail chains concern matters that were classified at the Top Secret/Special Access Program level when they were sent and received. These chains involved Secretary Clinton both sending e-mails about those matters and receiving e-mails from others about the same matters. There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position, or in the position of those government employees with whom she was corresponding about these matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation.

    "To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now.

    1. Re:Heard this before, right? by DamnOregonian · · Score: 1

      I still don't quite get the hubbub over this.
      The Secretary of State mishandled classified information, at a level that would have gotten an ordinary employee either fired, or severely sanctioned.
      I highly doubt she's the only one. Those rules are draconian for good reason, and heads of departments have a long and glorified history of playing fast and loose with them.
      I'm not justifying it, I just don't get why you think it's as earth shattering as you do.

    2. Re:Heard this before, right? by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Because she got caught red handed and still walked, so far.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    3. Re:Heard this before, right? by tbannist · · Score: 1

      I'm not justifying it, I just don't get why you think it's as earth shattering as you do.

      Because she's a Democrat and he's a Republican, he doesn't need any more reason than that.

      --
      Fanatically anti-fanatical
    4. Re:Heard this before, right? by DamnOregonian · · Score: 1

      I think my argument more-so, is that member of the Cabinet have a certain amount of immunity for being retarded.
      Again, I'm not justifying it... I just think it's a little bit insane to think that criminal prosecution is going to be launched against a cabinet member for a mea culpa on the handling of confidential information.

    5. Re:Heard this before, right? by HornWumpus · · Score: 0

      She was not retarded. She is Machiavellian. This was done to hide her actions, not by accident or out of stupidity.

      The words you are looking for are 'top secret'.

      I'll grant you that even if prosecuted, it's still the better outcome for Clinton, vs people seeing what was on the server.

      Reminder the Obama admin interfered with the investigation, had them remove the 'gross negligence' language. Just gave her a pass. Is that OK? Will it be OK for the 'other side'?

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    6. Re:Heard this before, right? by DamnOregonian · · Score: 1

      Hide her actions?
      You're so transparently partisan.

      What she did, was communicate confidential information over insecure channels that she actually had the technical authority to deem secure (though they were not) to people who she had every right to communicate them to, as the Secretary of State.

      Loretta Lynch was optically compromised, and was thus not involved in the decision, which led to this whole mess with Comey. The claim that the Obama Administration interfered with the investigation and had them remove language is patently false. Those decisions were made by the FBI.
      Clinton paid the reasonable price for her actions- political shit flinging that stuck. Trying to go beyond that is rabid.

    7. Re:Heard this before, right? by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Nobody (except the Chinese the Israelis and Ruskys and they ain't telling) know what was on the server. She deleted 30k emails before turning over the printouts of the remaining ones.

      https://www.chicagotribune.com...

      They covered for her, she's still due a real investigation, as is the coverup. Who knows where that leads.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    8. Re:Heard this before, right? by DamnOregonian · · Score: 1

      She did, indeed. The previous administration "lost" emails too. I'm sure this one will as well.
      Who knows what's on them? Standard political wheeling and dealing, I imagine.
      I'm sure they would have liked to have deleted more, but alas, they couldn't. There's no evidence of some vast conspiracy. What is it *you* think they were covering up?

      That article is a hit piece, btw. Surely you can see that?
      Look at the language it uses. It's designed to lead the reader to a specific conclusion. The author also happens to be a publish, rabid Trump supporter.

      Come on, dude.

  239. Why the single quotes around the word summary? by sabbede · · Score: 1

    Why is the title "Mueller Report 'Summary' Delivered to US Congress", instead of, "Mueller Report Summary Delivered to US Congress"? Is it somehow not a summary?

  240. Not beyond a reasonable doubt, but likely by raymorris · · Score: 1

    True, Juanita Broaddrick is straight up rape.
    There's not sufficient evidence to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt, but the evidence suggests he very likely did rape her.

  241. Re:Trump's campaign manager and personal lawyer... by mpercy · · Score: 1

    Read the NY Times articles about it? They pretty much said where's there's this much smoke, there's probably a fire...at the very least the optics were bad with the Clinton Foundation taking in 10s of millions of dollars from Russians connected with the deal and Bill personally raking in several hundreds of thousands of dollars for speeches given to Russians connected with the deal, then having the deal get approved by Sec. Clinton.

    "The New York Times confirmed Schweizer’s Uranium One revelations in a 4,000-word front-page story by a Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative reporter. It detailed how the Russian energy giant Rosatom had taken over the Canadian firm with three separate purchases between 2009 and 2013, largely coinciding with Hillary Clinton’s time as secretary of state.

    "The Hill reported last week that ahead of the deal, the FBI had uncovered “substantial evidence that Russian nuclear industry officials were engaged in bribery, kickbacks, extortion and money laundering” to expand Russia’s nuclear footprint in the U.S. as early as 2009. The agency also found that Russian nuclear officials had routed millions of dollars to the U.S. to benefit the Clinton Foundation. The Justice Department would sit on the evidence for four years before looking to prosecute, by which time the deal had been approved.

  242. Re:Trump's campaign manager and personal lawyer... by gtall · · Score: 1

    Trump's obsequious behavior towards Putin is suspicious. So is his failure to allow any notes of his meeting with Putin to see the light of day. So one the one hand, we have a President who has lied or told falsehoods over 8000 times since entering office and on the other we have a President who seemingly lies about everything and then explains that he lied. My guess is his dealings with Putin are above reproach must as a brick is above the Sargasso Sea (to reuse a choice Douglas Adams' phrase).

  243. Re:Trump's campaign manager and personal lawyer... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How are you not dizzy with your brain spinning in circles so much in this thread. You seem heavily invested in this "russia collusion" bullshit, did you get tricked and now have to double down because "you're smarter than that" lol. When did you start posting again? you went MIA for the last 6 months.. Are you even from the US?

  244. Quote: by aepervius · · Score: 1

    That quote from CNN encompass all that I think about the seemingly jubilitaiton of many people here " Barr reports that Mueller found insufficient evidence to charge a federal crime, but not necessarily that Mueller found no evidence whatsoever. ". That is it. Now all we can do is wait to see for ourselves those insufficient evidence. Since the prosecutor level was "beyond reasonable doubt" my guess is that it will be one of those report "OJ " like where the public can decide based on evidence provided , but the prosecution held to a higher standard cannot.

    --
    C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
    visit randi.org
  245. A few points by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    First, it's not a 'summary' it is a summary.
    Doing otherwise would be dumb. Eventually most of it will come out and if the AG mislead with the summary, eventually (nearer the 2020 election), this would make more for the other side to squalk about.

    Second, the summary is clear that after a long and painful investigation, it found no collusion between Trump or any American and the Russians . Unless the AG misrepresented this conclusion, the President was correct that this was a witch hunt.

    Third, given the witch hunt thing, and that the President seems incapable of doing things in private, and that obstruction of justice requires intent, the AG rightly concluded that no reasonable court could/would/should convict. Firing the FBI director (the one that let his opponent off the hook) may have been a dumb, emotional thing to do, but it would be near impossible to make it into obstruction of an investigation, given that the President hadn't done anything to justify the investigation in the first place.

    Forth, the investigation did show that the Russians were working to sow discontent in the American political system.. Me thinks that their efforts have done quite well. The better part of the country has fallen for it. The report says our President is not a crook. All should be happy, or at least relieved. Certainly not doubling down on the negative that got us where we are now. If you want 4 more years of Trump, then the negative that got us here seems likely to do it again.

  246. Re:And two years of investigations found none of i by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Did you bump your head? This is the most sane thing I've ever seen come from you regarding politics on slashdot. You're feeling ok right? Genuinely worried.

  247. Mueller is a Terrible Prosecutor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There were 37 charges filed and 8 convictions... that is a TERRIBLE conviction rate and is evidence that Mueller was operating under the notion to "throw it all against the wall to see what sticks."

    Prosecutors generally don't prosecute a crime unless they have nearly irrefutable evidence and are almost assured of winning a conviction. A high rate of acquittals is indicative of an oppressive regime that over-charges crimes.

    That is precisely what we have here in Mueller - an overzealous prosecutor wielding almost dictatorial power over the justice system. If there is anyone who is guilty of obstruction of justice and attempting to subvert our democracy, it is Robert Mueller.

  248. The Hanging by JimSadler · · Score: 0

    Trump will be charged and convicted of numerous crimes. Keep in mind that the investigation could be re-opened or that the Congressional investigation will impeach him. Trump does not have a chance. If he leaves office or is impeached he will be hit with a list of crimes that will bury him. The only hope he has is on the question of intent. I am not at all certain that he is not so ill that he is not capable of forming an intention. His reactions are more spastic than intentional. He also has over 40 civil suits to deal with and more are on the way. I do not see how anyone could fight 40 law suits and still have any kind of job at all, much less as POTUS.

  249. Re: Trump's campaign manager and personal lawyer.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He encouraged Russia to attack America?

    How does that work exactly?
    You mean release the hacked emails that Hilary deleted illegally? They would have done that either way, that's like blaming Trump for the rain.

    Can I encourage you to keep spouting your Orange Man Bad, Double Russia Agent bs agenda?
    I'd love to see him in office for another 4 years

  250. Re: Trump's campaign manager and personal lawyer. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't recall him supporting them, me thinks you wet-dreamed that part.

  251. Re:Show me the man and I’ll find you the cri by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Also Mueller's job wasn't necessarily to have any indictments or convictions, it was to investigate and determine what happened in a neutral manner. If he got to the end of the investigation, there were no indictments, etc, and had found no wrong doing and proved there was no collusion and anything else illegal going on, that would still be a success.

  252. Awful front-page post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm used to ALL of the major cable news networks spinning the news one direction or the other, but I expected better of this site, especially since you have such short snippets.

    As presented, with "While this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him," followed by information about Russian interference in the election, it very explicitly encourages the reader to assume that said questionable behavior was with respect to attempts to collude with Russian actors to interfere with the election. THIS IS NOT TRUE! The summary letter, as mentioned in other comments, *very explicitly* states, "As noted above, the Special Counsel did not find that any U.S. person or Trump campaign official or associate conspired or knowingly coordinated with the IRA in its efforts, although the Special Counsel brought criminal charges against a number of Russian nationals and entities in connection with these activities."

    If you want to include information about Trump's questionable behavior, and whether he should have been charged with obstruction of justice, fine, have at it, but don't mislead the reader - we should be celebrating the fact that "[T]he Special Counsel did not find that any U.S. person ... conspired or knowingly coordinated with the IRA in its efforts" !!

  253. Re:And two years of investigations found none of i by thereddaikon · · Score: 1

    And all of those indictments had nothing to do with Trump. It was all dirty and shady things those people did on their own. Trump hired a lot of veteran beltway types for his campaign. It should come as a shock to nobody that anyone who has spent more than a week working there is dirty. If you dug around in any campaign you would find the same kind of stuff for everyone. I'm willing to put money on it. As for why Trump fired Comey and why is isn't obstruction, I'm no legal expert. But if I had to guess, it may be because as Mueller's findings show there was nothing to it and it was a waste of time. It was also built upon a lie, the dossier made by Steele, a foreign agent by the way. Session's had started a major push to crack down on human trafficking and Comey was working on a sham investigation. He didn't get with the program and had clear political motives. I'd fire his ass too.

  254. better than a movie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Before reading any of this, I'm going to predict that the politically religious zealots will turn against their savior, Mueller, because he didn't deliver the correct message.

    There is no possible future in which this does not occur

  255. Re: Trump's campaign manager and personal lawyer. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Too true. As my grandfather says, âoeFacts donâ(TM)t care about your feelings.â

  256. Re: Trump's campaign manager and personal lawyer. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    12 short years from now

    When the ice caps all melt and global warming.

    Eventually someone has to be right, by sheer number of claims being made of eventual disaster

  257. 2020 Trump victory, thanks The Left. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So what's the next big scandal? How are these people going to cope with a Trump re election? It's almost inevitable at this point.

    By making such a fuss over this stupid non event you morons make Trump look better and better with every small victory.

    Good job, Trump successfully elected by the left. Twice.
    Realize that if you sided with the FBI against the president and actually believed he was a Russian shill then you're a leftist extremist.

    Grow up, stop acting like children when you lose, get an actual education, become more accepting of other people and other ideas. That's a great place to start.

  258. Re:Trump's campaign manager and personal lawyer... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And what have your businesses done? How much money have you earned? The fact that you are critiquing him must mean you've made more than him - correct?

    Not trying to troll you, but I hear this drivel from people all the time. He's literally a billionaire. Like he has more money right now that you and your progeny will have and descendants have had their entire life spans.

    And yet you still feel the need to dispute that. Morons. TDS.

  259. Re:Show me the man and I’ll find you the cri by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is it really over? Does AG Barr's summary of Mueller's report going to have any authority or effect over the US House of Representatives to deny their right of impeachment? I think whomever you are responding to is premature in their assessment. I believe the current US House of Representatives majority desperately wants to impeach President Trump, and nothing in law can stop them, even if Mueller's report did exonerate President Trump, only the House can decide to impeach. This situation makes the House not unlike a rouge grand jury. Normally, a grand jury needs a prosecutor to bring charges to them, and they decide if there will be a trial. The House of Representatives is both prosecutor and grand jury. I think impeachment is inevitable, regardless of Mueller's report or AG Barr's interpretation.

  260. US driven further apart by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Great, now people who were already driven apart are just going to double down on their extreme views. More cacophony and less focus on moving forward and dealing with any actual problems. Shit continues to go downhill and more bickering to ensue.

    1. Re:US driven further apart by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The saddest part is Trump is probably right that it was just a witch hunt, and probably the only thing he's guilty of is being a fucking moron who's inept at being president. If they release his taxes there will probably be nothing technically illegal on there and just using the same loopholes as any other shady business. The only thing that will highlight is what's wrong with the law as opposed to what's wrong with Trump in particular.

  261. Re:Trump's campaign manager and personal lawyer... by DarkOx · · Score: 1

    To me the evidence suggests that both are true. Schiff performed some serious amounts of witness tampering AND Cohen is a pathological liar

    --
    Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
  262. Re:Trump's campaign manager and personal lawyer... by DarkOx · · Score: 2

    RIght,

    Cohen took a plea. Cohen is a guy with his hands in many of cookie jar by all appearances and its likely he was threatened with being charged with much much worse. The same way a boarder line DUI offender might plea to equipment failure to account for their weaving. That sort of thing happens literally every day.

    The John Edwards case casts a WHOLE HECK OF A LOT OF DOUBT on if payments to Clifford's would ultimately be determined by a court to constitute a campaign contribution or not. If Trump were to be charged you can bet his lawyers would argue; quite correctly that a man might have all kinds of reasons to want to a mistress to not talk about the affair he had with her while his wife was pregnant. Reasons not related to the campaign at all. A lot of people for example might ask if that is how he treats his wife; can he be a reliable partner in business? As an example. That isnt a question a real-estate tycoon would want potential investors asking.

    Its only a campaign contribution if can convince a jury "but for his presidential campaign, the hush money would not have been paid." If anything Cohen's repeated self contributions do a lot to impeach the best argument that likely exists: Trump's fixer said that is why he did it.

    So although yes Cohen was "convicted of campaign finance violations" there exists no finding of fact that said violation occurred. That is important legally speaking if you are Trump.

    --
    Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
  263. Re:Show me the man and I’ll find you the cri by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Getting people on a process crime is normal face-saving thing. Gotta get those pelts!

  264. Re:Trump's campaign manager and personal lawyer... by phlinn · · Score: 1

    "...why did Trump and his associates keep lying about it?" Because it has terrible optics not matter what? People lie to cover up embarrassing but legal actions all the damn time.

    --
    "Pulling together is the aim of despotism and tyranny! Free men pull in all sorts of directions" -- Havelock Vetinari
  265. Re:Trump's campaign manager and personal lawyer... by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

    Which party is it again that Steve King, Steve Scalise, Cindy Hyde-Smith, Corey Stewart, Jason Spencer, and Donald "very fine people" Trump have had their political careers with?

    --
    "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  266. AG Barr is in error by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Barr also writes that the report leaves it to him to determine whether president Trump is guilty of obstructing justice

    Major WTF. AG is arrogantly overstepping his authority, which was merely to present a summary, not to do this. How can the Meuller report rewrite the US Constitution? Isn't it always up to the US House of Representatives whether a president will be impeached? And isn't it up to the US Senate to determine if an impeached president is guilty of the crimes? How did AG Barr gain this authority... to decide whether or not to prosecute a president?

  267. Re:Trump's campaign manager and personal lawyer... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Clinton campaign did the same thing. The difference is, we've had 2 years of investigation into the Trump campaign and it was found to not be collusion. Shall we now do the same with the Clinton campaign and the DNC, who financed the dossier which was written by a foreigner, with Russian influences, to damage their opponent? Or is that not collusion?

    Maybe you're right, this is more the CIA's job. Obviously you need contacts in Russia to get dirt on Russian business dealings. They can try to corroborate the information in the dossier and you know, exonerate Trump.

    Corroborate the dossier! Corroborate the dossier!

  268. Re:Trump's campaign manager and personal lawyer... by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

    Not the one with Robert "Sheets" Byrd, Ilhan Omar, Rashida Tlaib, etc. And you seem to forget that the GOP publicly stated - and voted - a rebuke of Steve King. Yet the Democrats refuse to do so for the obvious racism/anti-semitism in their own ranks...

    --
    Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
  269. Re:Trump's campaign manager and personal lawyer... by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

    So meeting with Russian operatives during your campaign is not an issue? Great - so why the charges of collusion against Trump? Obvious double standard is obvious.

    --
    Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
  270. Re:Show me the man and I’ll find you the cri by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe this was a legitimate investigation and not a Democrat hit job? A completed investigation is a win for the rule of law, regardless of what was found. There were indications that a foreign power may have conspired to subvert our democracy. This matters. So you investigate, document what was found, and recommend appropriate action. That's what was done here. Now everyone will grandstand and twist the results to suit their egos and aspirations. This doesn't matter. But it's what everyone will focus on.

  271. Re:Trump's campaign manager and personal lawyer... by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 2

    Eh, no, It was the Republicans who commissioned the 'dossier', the Democrats just picked up where the Republican left off after they decoded Trump was their new god emperor.

    No, that is not correct. It was started by the Free Beacon, but then dropped. It was not funded by the GOP. However, we do have the Clinton campaign and the DNC paying Fusion GPS. So no - you're wrong. The GOP did NOT commission the dossier. That's a lie. The Democrats own that one - and like most things, they want to get rid of their connection - so they lie about it.

    --
    Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
  272. Re:Show me the man and I’ll find you the cri by ClickOnThis · · Score: 1

    37 indictments, 6 guilty please, and one conviction. That doesn't sound like a fail to me.

    "please"?

    Typo. I didn't proof-read carefully enough. (I almost did it again while writing this reply.)

    And on the subject of corrections, I'll clarify that the Mueller probe made 199 criminal counts on 37 individuals, with 7 guilty pleas, 1 conviction at trial, and 5 people heading to jail (so far.)

    So a detective, driving to a murder scene, stops and writes someone a speeding ticket. The Detective never closes the murder case - that's a fail. Mueller was investigating collusion and obstruction of justice, he found none of either - so yes, fail.

    He was also investigating Russian interference in the election. He indicted 26 Russians. The charges against the other individuals may not have involved conspiracy, but they were not speeding tickets. They were felonies.

    --
    If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
  273. Re:Trump's campaign manager and personal lawyer... by Freischutz · · Score: 1

    Eh, no, It was the Republicans who commissioned the 'dossier', the Democrats just picked up where the Republican left off after they decoded Trump was their new god emperor.

    No, that is not correct. It was started by the Free Beacon, but then dropped. It was not funded by the GOP. However, we do have the Clinton campaign and the DNC paying Fusion GPS. So no - you're wrong. The GOP did NOT commission the dossier. That's a lie. The Democrats own that one - and like most things, they want to get rid of their connection - so they lie about it.

    I didn't say the GOP commissioned that dossier I said it was Republicans, the Washington Free Beacon is a conservative website that shills for the GOP which makes it part of the GOP hive-mind. When the Beacon dropped the dossier after Trump became god-emperor of the right wing Fusion GPS sold it to the DNC. Now that is free market capitalism at work, as a conservative you should approve :-)

  274. Why would we believe a summary? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Apart from the obvious bias present from Barr, we are talking about a report that is over 600 pages -- we're going to believe a summary from a Trump appointee? Are we all really that stupid.

  275. Re:Trump's campaign manager and personal lawyer... by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

    Robert "Sheets" Byrd, Ilhan Omar, Rashida Tlaib

    People who apologized for and renounced their racism? Do you have any examples of unapologetic practicing racists like the ones I listed?

    Also the Democrats have rebuked anti-Semitism within their own ranks. But the Republicans want them to rebuke anti-semitism separately and not alongside Islamophobia or anything else...why don't they like rebukes of Islamophobia? Curious.

    --
    "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  276. Re:Quick, Move Your Brain by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    while it does nothing, the weak minded see everything

  277. Re:Trump's campaign manager and personal lawyer... by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

    That is a twisted history you have. Citation needed - because everything I've seen says the dossier was started after the DNC and the Clinton campaign began funding Fusion GPS. Rachel Maddow would be proud of you!

    --
    Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
  278. The situation brings up a point by kaatochacha · · Score: 1

    I hear from Trump critics the following two trains of thought, which are inconsistent with each other:
    1) He's a big criminal masterminding an organized conspiracy of Collusion with Russia and keeping it under wraps.
    2) He's an absolute moron.

    I tend to believe #2, however I admit I could be incorrect: However, assuming he is a moron, that pretty much rules out the whole collusion issue: with a moron, it would have been much more obvious.
    That doesn't rule out Russian interference- they were certainly capable of interfering, and the report says as much.

    1. Re:The situation brings up a point by Gilgaron · · Score: 1

      I had read some purported interactions where it seemed the Trump side was too dim to pick up on the offers to collude from Russia. I'm not sure which possibility is worse. Hopefully the full report is made public so we can see which rumors were right.

  279. Re: Trump's campaign manager and personal lawyer.. by kaatochacha · · Score: 1

    a simple "Move on" would have sufficed.
    I get where you're coming from, but ...

  280. Re: Trump's campaign manager and personal lawyer.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Kiddo, y'all are also conspiracy theorists, what with this "Russia Hacked the Election," "Trump is Russian Puppetz" nonsense being blasted all over the place. How on Earth did y'all not expect that to normalize conspiracy theorizing? You're not actually better than them. Y'all aren't even better than them about ethnonationalism, you just flipped the signs on it to point the other direction.

  281. Re:Trump's campaign manager and personal lawyer... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wrong, the Washington Free Beacon (a newspaper) funded Fusion GPS looking into Trump. Also, the Steele Dossier wasn't part of it.

    Here's the Free Beacon admitting to it.

    https://freebeacon.com/uncategorized/fusion-gps-washington-free-beacon/

  282. Re:Trump's campaign manager and personal lawyer... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    His properties are valued at 3.1 billion, according to Forbes. We don't know how much money he really has in the bank, especially since he won't share his tax returns. My guess is that he floats on loan after loan. The guy is a really good con artist but don't for a second ever compare to a honest, hard-working American. The man hasn't done an honest day's work in his life.

  283. Re:Trump's campaign manager and personal lawyer... by DamnOregonian · · Score: 1

    However, there's a problem here - that's not a crime,

    I am so tired of you fuckwits parroting this horse shit. You either know it's false, and are trying to manipulate public opinion, or you're too fucking stupid to look it up yourself.

    A campaign finance violation is a lot like a tax code violation. In itself, not typically a criminal violation. However, there's a clear line that can be crossed on both that turns it into a criminal violation- provable intent.

    When the feds catch you talking about your scheme to avoid disclosure, you've nailed intent, and this moves from a fine to a criminal prosecution.

  284. Re:Trump's campaign manager and personal lawyer... by DamnOregonian · · Score: 1

    Its only a campaign contribution if can convince a jury "but for his presidential campaign, the hush money would not have been paid."

    You're close, but not quite there.
    All they have to prove is that there was any intent, whatsoever, to affect the optics of the campaign by paying money to hide the affair.
    What's important is that they have intent. Whether he would have paid or not is entirely irrelevant. They simply had to know it was important to the campaign.

    Put another way: Lying about use of money to pay for a networking trip to Vegas doesn't become legal once you can convince a Jury you would have done it even if you weren't running.

  285. Re:Trump's campaign manager and personal lawyer... by DamnOregonian · · Score: 1

    he's a pathological liar

    It's also pretty clear you don't know the actual definition of that term.

    Yes, he's as crooked as they come, working for... an actual fucking pathological liar.
    What in the name of the fucking almighty makes you think his boss is more credible than him?

  286. Re:Trump's campaign manager and personal lawyer... by DamnOregonian · · Score: 1

    Correction: A guilty plea is in fact a conviction.
    Do you really not know this?
    Do you think that people who plead guilty aren't convicts?

    A conviction is any determination of guilty by a party with the authority to do so. A Judge accepting a defendant's guilty plea results in a conviction from the Judge.
    The Judge can also refuse to accept the defendant's guilty plea, staying the conviction until decided by a Jury.

    What's your angle? Grasping for straws to defend your guy, or what?

  287. Re: Trump's campaign manager and personal lawyer.. by DamnOregonian · · Score: 1

    I have no love for Tough Love. He's a first order gas lighting attack dog for anything he feels emotionally or financially invested in, regardless of merit.
    That being said, he's not wrong.
    Mueller didn't explicitly state anything. Mueller filed a report, which was summarized by the Trump-appointed AG.
    That's simply a fact.

  288. Re:Trump's campaign manager and personal lawyer... by Freischutz · · Score: 1

    That is a twisted history you have. Citation needed - because everything I've seen says the dossier was started after the DNC and the Clinton campaign began funding Fusion GPS. Rachel Maddow would be proud of you!

    I don’t have to go get far for a citation you said it yourself:

    No, that is not correct. It was started by the Free Beacon, but then dropped...

    ... although you tried made it sound like the Washington Free Beacon is some DNC mouthpiece by neglecting to mention the fact that the Beacon is a conservative site that shills for the RNC. The Beacon contracted with Fusion GPS to dig up dirt on Trump in October 2015. When Trump was crowned god emperor of right wing loony-land Fusion was dropped by the Beacon and the DNC took over the dirt mining project but that still does not change the fact that it was started by a Republican entity.

  289. Wow, what a huge waste of money... by Proudrooster · · Score: 1

    $25 million and counting so far and we have "no collusion".

    I imagine the next money wasting investigation will begin soon.

    $25 million, just mindblowing... if we could only get that kind of unlimited money for education.

    1. Re:Wow, what a huge waste of money... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You do know that the Mueller investigation seized assets for almost $50 million, right?

  290. Re: Trump's campaign manager and personal lawyer. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Israel kills Muslims. It's money well spent.

  291. Re:Trump's campaign manager and personal lawyer... by tbannist · · Score: 1

    If the person you're asking is a Republican, then they probably would, and then they'd get you an interview spot on Fox "News" so you could explain how "Killary" forced you to rob the bank.

    --
    Fanatically anti-fanatical
  292. Re:Trump's campaign manager and personal lawyer... by DarkOx · · Score: 1

    No this is not correct. If it was correct than Edwards would have gone to jail.. You telling me John Edwards did not think running around on his wife while she lay dying would not affect the optics of the campaign. What happens if I buy a new car while running for office. If I chose a Prius one could argue that I was trying to appeal to eco-concisous voters. Do I need to disclose that to the FEC as a campaign expenditure. Obviously not if its only for my person use fetching groceries.

    --
    Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
  293. Re:Doesn't conclude but doesn't exonerate? BS! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well it depends on the context.

    When charges were not filed in the Vince Foster investigation, it means the Clintons were innocent.

    This means Trump is guilty.

    The context is what letter comes after their names.

  294. trouble in 2020 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    People who are thinking about voting for Trump are going to have a hard time justifying:

    1) The Mueller investigation suggesting maybe his employees didn't want to cooperate very much (or even didn't care about!) the investigation
    2) Sometimes Trump eats 2 Big Macs. No one else gets that!
    3) Van Jones said the boost in the economy doesn't matter
    4) He is opposed to the cartels coming into the country. Wouldn't you let the cartels into your neighborhood? If not, how racist is that?!

    So I think his political career is nearing its end. How do you come back from that?

  295. Re:Trump's campaign manager and personal lawyer... by DamnOregonian · · Score: 1

    You missed the point again. You have to prove intent.
    They could not prove intent with Edwards. Between you and I? Of course there was intent. But proving it is difficult.

  296. Re:Trump's campaign manager and personal lawyer... by ClickOnThis · · Score: 1

    As I said, I was misled by another post. You and others have pointed out my error. I googled and verified you are all correct.

    Thanks for the improvement. But I have no angle. I just screwed up.

    --
    If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
  297. Re:Trump's campaign manager and personal lawyer... by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

    Free Beacon is an independent, conservative leaning news site. The Clinton campaign and the DNC are directly involved in the election. BIG difference there...

    --
    Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
  298. Re:Trump's campaign manager and personal lawyer... by DamnOregonian · · Score: 1

    Then please forgive my tone.
    That particular argument is one I've seen disseminated with the passion of people trying to change reality in the minds of people who don't care to know better.
    Wasn't sure if you were one of those folks, or not.

  299. What this is really about by ASCIIxTended · · Score: 0

    I don't believe for a second that the heads of the Democratic party were not aware that Mueller would find nothing. I think it was purposely made a talking point and delayed so that any report would come out AFTER the 2018 election cycle, giving voters a reason to support them.

    Democrats will do ANYTHING for more power and rarely look very far into the future - they want their power NOW.

    --
    I do not belong to the church of the lowercase 'i'
    1. Re:What this is really about by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cool. Can we release the full report then?

  300. Re: Trump's campaign manager and personal lawyer. by Shotgun · · Score: 1

    Difference is, Barr is the AG. Not a glorified policeman.

    --
    Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
    Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
  301. Re:Trump's campaign manager and personal lawyer... by Freischutz · · Score: 1

    Free Beacon is an independent, conservative leaning news site. The Clinton campaign and the DNC are directly involved in the election. BIG difference there...

    .. the beacon is funded by Republican donors, including Paul Singer, which makes it part of the larger Republican hive, it is not independent nor is it fair and unbalanced. But never mind that, since when is it a crime for political parties like the Democrats to dig up opposition research on their opponents? Or is that another one of those thing that's perfectly OK when Republican do it, but becomes an act of treason when Democrats do that exact same thing?

  302. Re:Trump's campaign manager and personal lawyer... by Shotgun · · Score: 0

    Well, we have your analysis, and we have the analysis from former FEC Chairmen. They say you're wrong. I think they probably know more about it than you.

    --
    Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
    Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
  303. Re:Trump's campaign manager and personal lawyer... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wrong, the Washington Free Beacon (a newspaper) funded Fusion GPS looking into Trump. Also, the Steele Dossier wasn't part of it.

    Here's the Free Beacon admitting to it.

    https://freebeacon.com/uncategorized/fusion-gps-washington-free-beacon/

    The opposition research dossier compiled by Fusion DNC contained opposition research Fusion GPS dug up itself, stuff that Steele that dug up while working for the DNC and stuff he continued digging up on Trump when the DNC stopped financing him. Fusion GPS is a private investigation firm that maintains databases on politicians among others and sells access to it that is how they make a living. Steele is only one of their subcontractors, Fusion GPS does not care whether the paymaster is (as you seem to see it) a right thinking conservative that walks with god or a wrong thinking DNC libtard traitor. All they care about is money.

  304. Re:Trump's campaign manager and personal lawyer... by ClickOnThis · · Score: 1

    Forgiven and forgotten.

    --
    If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
  305. Re:Trump's campaign manager and personal lawyer... by Shotgun · · Score: 1

    If there was intent, then why did he pay off the other mistresses BEFORE he ever started running for President. This is not Trump's first payoff rodeo. The evidence is that National Enquirer had quite a little side-line going where they would buy up and bury these types of stories.

    --
    Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
    Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
  306. Re:Trump's campaign manager and personal lawyer... by DamnOregonian · · Score: 1
    That's a load of horse shit.

    He said in order for there to be a criminal violation of campaign finance law, one must prove there was a "knowing and willful" violation.

    Von Spakovsky believes that's a tough case to prove.

    Weird. It's like I said... pretty much exactly that.

    Why are you full of shit? What is it you're trying to accomplish?

  307. Re:Trump's campaign manager and personal lawyer... by DamnOregonian · · Score: 1

    Oh, the as to "why there was intent" hinges upon the fact that Cohen said there was.
    Whether or not that is credible is another story, but assuming it factual, that constitutes a criminal offense.

    I never said I believed one way or another. I was simply dispelling some incorrect information about whether or not it could *be* a criminal offense.

  308. Re:Trump's campaign manager and personal lawyer... by Shotgun · · Score: 1

    Yes. And to keep their love child a secret.

    --
    Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
    Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
  309. Re:Trump's campaign manager and personal lawyer... by Shotgun · · Score: 1

    You're apparently delusional.

    You start with the fact that he controls 3.1 billion in property, but then imply that he is used car salesman level con artist without a penny to back anything up. I'm simply amazed that such a convoluted model of the world can exist in anyone's head.

    If he can maintain a con like that for the past 40 years, he is the most amazing, hard-working con-artist the world has ever known.

    --
    Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
    Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
  310. Re:Trump's campaign manager and personal lawyer... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No, actually, he was not. Cohen plead guilty to a number of things that might have been crimes. He was never convicted and so the prosecution's case was never tested in a court of law. A small but important point.

    And even if it were the case that it was an illegal contribution it still HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH RUSSIAN COLLUSION.

  311. Re:Show me the man and I’ll find you the cri by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Benghazi? zero indictments.

    Congratulations, incompetence isn't a crime.

    Wait... Are you talking about Hillary or the dozens of Republican fishing expeditions coming up empty and wasting taxpayer money and congressional time better spent on addressing actual problems?

    Because something tells me you're not as upset by the latter...

  312. Re:Trump's campaign manager and personal lawyer... by Shotgun · · Score: 1

    Omar didn't apologize for her antisemitism. She apologized that it made others feel bad.

    And taking a resolution denouncing antisemitism that was written to rebuke an antisemitic muslim and watering it down to denunciate all "hate" so that the particular hate in evidence can be hidden in the crowd is disgusting.

    --
    Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
    Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
  313. Re:Trump's campaign manager and personal lawyer... by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

    Yet it is not the GOP. Is it? But why does the DNC and the Clinton campaign get a free pass from you? Is it because you believe that those you favor shouldn't have to play by the same rules, or suffer the same consequences as those you don't like? Justice isn't blind, right?

    --
    Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
  314. Re:Show me the man and I’ll find you the cri by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If this was an apt analogy, then why wouldn't Columbo even talk to his main murder suspect? The investigation mandate was broader and you just want to claim victory for partisan reasons.

  315. bubble pops by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Folks no need to let politicians use your anger to elicit campaign donations of free volunteer labor because of these investigations being inconclusive.

    Only one investigation 40 years ago has effect. The rest, which there are more than 20, did really nothing.

    It's high drama Washington wants like how a recent supreme court nominee was microscopically analyzed to no real net effect. Remember, he passed at least one Senatorial confirmation before years ago just to become a fed judge.

    Repeating an unproven, un-provable or unsubstantiated allegation thousands of times should not equate to proven guilt be you of either political party.

  316. Re: Trump's campaign manager and personal lawyer.. by budsetr · · Score: 1

    Wait, are you trying to insinuate that Trump ISN'T the second coming of Jesus?
    'Casue that's what I implied from you remark

    Pretty certain that I get Internet Points for using insinuate and implied properly, content be damned.

  317. Re: Trump's campaign manager and personal lawyer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And a strong "morons are everywhere and predictable" one.

    I wonder if they're related somehow.

  318. Re:And two years of investigations found none of i by acrimonious+howard · · Score: 1

    And all of those indictments had nothing to do with Trump.

    Lololol, half of those people were directly appointed by Trump. You don't get any closer of a relationship than personal lawyer for decades, or the very top campaign director. I love the calldown sheet, this is just like when the Trump tower meeting was first speculated. Trump says

    • 1. "There was no meeting at Trump tower! Absolutely none!!!" Then records of a meeting surface...
    • 2. "It was only between 2 people!" Then 3 people are named...
    • 3. "It was only 3!!" Then 5 people are named, and one of them a known informant to the Kremlin.
    • 4. "Just 5 I swear!! And nobody of any high rank in my org!" ... 8 people, including Don Jr.

    How in the world does anyone believe anybody who just repeatedly, serially, redundantly lies like this??

    It was all dirty and shady things those people did on their own. Trump hired a lot of veteran beltway types for his campaign.

    Ya, and mob bosses hire dirty thugs all the time. It shouldn't make them innocent. Even without direct orders, leadership style and tactics have a way of filtering down an organization. A one-off, low-level, dirty employee doesn't necessarily say much. But when you're seeing 10x as many prosecutions as the next company (or administration), then you know the top level apples are rotten. Heh, and it's easy to see good leadership in action. When one employee screws up, real leaders actually take responsibility. If nothing else, they at least say, "Ok, we've identified some illegal activity. We're going to launch our own investigation and/or learn from the incident, and ensure this never happens again." Trumps answer? "Nothing bad happened, you're imagining it!!! Baaaaa!"

    As for why Trump fired Comey and why is isn't obstruction, I'm no legal expert. But if I had to guess, it may be because as Mueller's findings show there was nothing to it and it was a waste of time. It was also built upon a lie, the dossier made by Steele, a foreign agent by the way.

    Ok, you're no longer making any sense at all. Nothing to it? The 'it' is Trump admitted he fired the FBI director over the Russia investigation. Waste of time? See previous mentions of all the prosecutions. Built on a lie? How is Trump admitting obstruction built on a lie? You're saying Trump lied? Lol this convo makes no sense I'm done.

  319. Re: Trump's campaign manager and personal lawyer.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Imagine controlling 3.1b in property and having 3b in debt.

    And starting with a bunch of money you got through tax evasion from your father's estate.

  320. Re: Trump's campaign manager and personal lawyer. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The report literally stated Russia interfered with the election...

  321. Re:Trump's campaign manager and personal lawyer... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I see we're back at accusation = guilt. Will you guys ever learn?

  322. Re:Trump's campaign manager and personal lawyer... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think you may have forgot to put on your liberal circular logic thinking cap. That's you don't understand that trump is guilty because he didn't collude, while clinton is innocent because they did collude. Make sense now?

  323. Re: Trump's campaign manager and personal lawyer.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Holy fucking SHIT you are retarded.

  324. Re:Trump's campaign manager and personal lawyer... by Highdude702 · · Score: 1

    People who apologized for and renounced their racism?

    Sorry, you can not renounce racism. You can apologize for it sure, but that means nothing more than a canadian apologizing because they sneezed. A racist is a racist, and as the liberals have shown should be shunned from earth forever for even thinking about thinking something racist. Trust me I saw this shit on CNN it has to be true.

    --Highdude702(mods)

  325. Re:Trump's campaign manager and personal lawyer... by Highdude702 · · Score: 1

    Not remembering a secondary detail isn't a lie.

    You're right because its deceit, which is 10x worse than just a normal lie. Also shows your hand and character. You're not in this for truth. You just hate Trump so much you don't care what it takes to get him out of office and into prison. Even if he is 100% innocent of any crime.

  326. Re:Trump's campaign manager and personal lawyer... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You guys have so much deceit in this thread. I get you're trying to lie to others to change their opinion, but please for your own sake tell me you're not actually lying to yourself about this stuff to make yourself feel better? That is not healthy. There's a few of you here that should probably seek help.

  327. Re: Trump's campaign manager and personal lawyer.. by bobbied · · Score: 1

    Sorry, the summary says the counsel deferred to AG and Rosenstein on whether there was enough to prosecute, not that there "was no collusion" - Mueller never said that, sorry bitch. Trump hangs for his other proven crimes either way.

    You lose either way.

    Deferred the choice on obstruction, which, by the way, REQUIRES that there be an actual crime for which the investigation was obstructed... Which was what? Russian Collusion?

    By the way, Mueller isn't going to charge anybody else here, that means that nobody else was involved in some criminal activity, INCLUDING the Trump Tower Meeting attendees. At this point, I suppose you *could* argue that Trump himself was colluding but his staff didn't know about it or participated in the scheme, but I'd say you are grasping at straws if you did.

    --
    "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
  328. Re:And two years of investigations found none of i by walllaby · · Score: 1

    #nevertrunk

  329. Re: Trump's campaign manager and personal lawyer.. by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

    Belly crawling anonymous troll dude, one day later it is now known that my comment was exactly correct. Now go slither back to your hole.

    --
    When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
  330. Re: Trump's campaign manager and personal lawyer.. by Freischutz · · Score: 1

    Holy fucking SHIT you are retarded.

    No, I'm using Trumpkin logic on you, but that's pretty much the same thing ... and why do you worship feces?

  331. Re:Trump's campaign manager and personal lawyer... by Freischutz · · Score: 1

    Yet it is not the GOP. Is it? But why does the DNC and the Clinton campaign get a free pass from you? Is it because you believe that those you favor shouldn't have to play by the same rules, or suffer the same consequences as those you don't like? Justice isn't blind, right?

    Free pass on what? Opposition research? Are you seriously telling me that the GOP has never done that because they have Christian Morality ? It's not illegal to compile opposition research on somebody and if that turns up that he suffers from urolagnia that's not the DNC's fault.

  332. Re: Trump's campaign manager and personal lawyer.. by ClickOnThis · · Score: 1

    obstruction, which, by the way, REQUIRES that there be an actual crime for which the investigation was obstructed...

    Well hold on. That's just AG William Barr's view. And he has even more generous views on whether the POTUS can obstruct justice at all. Which is to say, he think the POTUS can't. And to that point, he wrote what was practically an audition letter to be AG.

    As for whether there has to be an underlying crime for there to be obstruction ... I give you Martha Stweart.

    --
    If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
  333. Re:Trump's campaign manager and personal lawyer... by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

    Hiring foreign nationals to use Russian lies to build up a dossier, and meeting with Russian operatives in secret and NOT reporting the meetings. That's collusion right there, at least that's what we've been told for the last several years...

    --
    Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
  334. Re:Trump's campaign manager and personal lawyer... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hiring foreign nationals to use Russian lies to build up a dossier, and meeting with Russian operatives in secret and NOT reporting the meetings. That's collusion right there, at least that's what we've been told for the last several years...

    WTF are you talking about? The Steele material? Nothing about that its illegal, you can use sources in Russia to dig up dirt on Donald Trump, that's legal, I don't see the problem here. This is nothing the Republicans have shied away from doing themselves when they took the stolen DNC emails from Wikileaks and ran with them and they weren't exactly honest about their communications with Wikileaks now were they? That had to be literally squeezed out of Roger Stone and other Trump surrogates like juice out of a lemon. As far as I can tell, according to the AG and the Muller report that is perfectly legal too. The Republicans may have christian morality and they may walk with god but they are not above punching the opposition in the nuts. All this is is the Democrats learning dirty tricks from the Bill Clinton impeachment, the numerous Republican investigations of Hillary Clinton that led nowhere and resulted in no criminal charges and all the bullshit the Republicans heaped on Obama about him being born in Kenya, him being a crypto Muslim, Obama being a founder of ISIS and they are using them against Trump. Enjoy the ride, the Dems learned these tactics from you, the conservatives, sole purveyors of truth morality and god's word in the known universe (and this has been a large dose of sarcasm in case you failed to detect it).

  335. Re:Trump's campaign manager and personal lawyer... by quantaman · · Score: 1

    Not remembering a secondary detail isn't a lie.

    You're right because its deceit, which is 10x worse than just a normal lie. Also shows your hand and character. You're not in this for truth. You just hate Trump so much you don't care what it takes to get him out of office and into prison. Even if he is 100% innocent of any crime.

    Uhhhh.

    You do realize that by deliberately conflating an easily made factual error with deceit you are in fact... committing deceit?

    --
    I stole this Sig
  336. Re:Trump's campaign manager and personal lawyer... by Freischutz · · Score: 1

    You guys have so much deceit in this thread. I get you're trying to lie to others to change their opinion, but please for your own sake tell me you're not actually lying to yourself about this stuff to make yourself feel better? That is not healthy. There's a few of you here that should probably seek help.

    What? That the free Beacon is a conservative rag that hired Fusion GPS to dig up dirt on Trump? That is a matter of public record. This is only the end of Season 1, but there is so much more dirt on Trump that can be used to fuck up his life, I'm looking forward to Season 2.

  337. Re:Trump's campaign manager and personal lawyer... by dcw3 · · Score: 0

    More TDS (Trump derangement syndrome). If there was no collusion, there's nothing to obstruct because you end up with the same result...justice is served.

    Now, had Muller pointed to a stained blue dress, I'd be calling for Trump's head. But go ahead and keep investigating for the next year or so, and watch who gets reelected because moderates (like myself, who didn't vote for him) will start saying enough is enough.

    --
    Just another day in Paradise
  338. Re:Trump's campaign manager and personal lawyer... by dcw3 · · Score: 1

    On the other hand, if a campaign co-ordinates with foreigners to engage in activities aimed at influencing an election

    BOGGLE!!! WTF do you think the purpose of the fucking dossier was??? Damn are you dense.

    --
    Just another day in Paradise
  339. Re:Trump's campaign manager and personal lawyer... by Highdude702 · · Score: 1

    Anybody who has made it this far down the page knows by now that you're obfuscating and full of shit.

  340. Re:Show me the man and I’ll find you the cri by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So a detective, driving to a murder scene, stops and writes someone a speeding ticket. The Detective never closes the murder case - that's a fail. Mueller was investigating collusion and obstruction of justice, he found none of either - so yes, fail.

    I don't think that's a great comparison. For the murder, we know it occurred and are investigating what happened. So yes, if we don't solve the case that's a fail. For the collusion, we don't know if it happened. The investigation is determine if there was collusion or not! So if the investigation turns up no collusion and no obstruction, that's still a success as we determined what happened (or didn't happen).

  341. Re:Trump's campaign manager and personal lawyer... by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

    Sounds like a lie to me, how much more completely can one apologize?

    https://theintercept.com/2019/...

    Will you apologize for your lie?

    Quick reminder of what we're stacking this up against:

    https://www.usatoday.com/story...

    I think whistling and looking the other way from that kind of thing, calling the recognition of Islamophobia as being just as bad as anti-Semitism "watering down," is disgusting.

    --
    "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  342. Re: Trump's campaign manager and personal lawyer. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We send lots of foreign aid to many different countries, why did you single out Israel?

    Are you a closeted antisemitic progressive?

  343. Re: Trump's campaign manager and personal lawyer. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm sorry, I must have missed that part.

    Who did he sexually assault again?
    Or did they not teach that embellishing is not a crime?

  344. Re:What can be released? 4th amendment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Trump's own 4th amendment's can't be violated. It would be absurd after the 2016 election and all those stupidities about Hillary's personal mail.

    Bill of right "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects". So the FBI spent M$ ... for a summary ? I think the am. people is denied the right to grasp how the smartest president ever gets to "grab em all by the pussy", built his B$ wealth from a M$ inheritance, outdated career republicans (apparatchiks) marry two soviet women, etc. A summary because a secular state should not lead its citizen into subrogation into Trump's personal aptitude.

    The am. people right is on their 2016 contract : A crown for Trump in exchange of "Jail her" + "reverse Obamacare" + "they will pay our wall" etc. So technically Trump is nobody employee, he gained the executive power over Americans from the Americans. The Americans could eventually scrutinize the "meeting of the minds, capacity, good faith etc." of the 2016 contract but the lie flooding has already changed their palatability for power. (Yeah, I said palatability not palpatine)

  345. Re:Trump's campaign manager and personal lawyer... by ClickOnThis · · Score: 1

    On the other hand, if a campaign co-ordinates with foreigners to engage in activities aimed at influencing an election (such as, oh say, hacking your opponent's email servers) then that is collusion.

    Yeah, but Mueller stated, and Barr reported, that they found NO evidence (zip, nada, zilch) evidence that anyone in the Trump campaign ever coordinated anything with the Russians, despite the Russian's repeated explicit attempts to do just that.

    Actually, what Mueller said, and Barr cited was that "[T]he investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities." (emphasis mine.) That doesn't sound like "zip, nada, zilch" evidence, although that may very well be the case. We'll need to see the report to find out. But at this stage it does appear that Mueller's finding is that, whatever Trump's campaign did, it did not rise to the level of conspiracy or co-ordination with a foreign government.

    And if a foreign government handed a campaign unsolicited information about its opponent, then that would be an illegal campaign contribution

    But if you pay for the information from the same foreign government it's OK?

    The dossier paid for by the DNC was prepared by a British former intelligence agent, not a government. But anyway, as for whether it's okay to buy information from a foreign government in the context of an election campaign, I confess I don't know, but perhaps it's okay. The FEC rules appear to be mostly concerned with active foreign influence on a campaign, such as a foreign entity participating in the strategizing or decision-making with a candidate. (The Trump Tower meeting had the look of that kind of activity, but apparently Mueller concluded there was smoke but no fire.) If a campaign simply requested and paid for information from a foreign source (government or otherwise) without involving the source in campaign planning, that doesn't sound to me like a violation.

    --
    If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
  346. Re:Trump's campaign manager and personal lawyer... by ClickOnThis · · Score: 1

    On the other hand, if a campaign co-ordinates with foreigners to engage in activities aimed at influencing an election

    BOGGLE!!! WTF do you think the purpose of the fucking dossier was??? Damn are you dense.

    Yes, obviously the dossier was requested and purchased from a British former intelligence agent with the intent (by the DNC) to influence the election. There was no co-ordination between the agent and the DNC, other than the DNC telling him who they wanted information on, and then cutting him a check. The agent was not involved in the planning, strategizing, or decision-making for the campaign, nor did he donate to it. His research was a work-for-hire.

    --
    If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
  347. Re:Trump's campaign manager and personal lawyer... by Shotgun · · Score: 1

    Nowhere in that article is there an apology. Whenever you mouth something and then say "but", the words you mouthed are just a cover. She was not talking about Israel with her antisemitic tweet. The was talking about Jews. She had met with Jewish members of her district two years ago to discuss her antisemitic statements, and they came away stating that she wasn't interested in learning how her antisemitic statements are damaging. She had made a similar apology only two weeks before. The House resolution was initiated to call out her antisemitism, but Nancy couldn't politically bury it since the two of them had just appeared on the cover of "Rolling Stones" together, so they chose to water it down to disguise the real target.

    Fortunately, we have Jew haters like GameboyRMH to run cover for her anyway.

    --
    Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
    Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
  348. Re:Trump's campaign manager and personal lawyer... by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

    Hey, I'm not the one defending the party that does this:

    https://www.theguardian.com/wo...

    And forgetting to mention the primary target of the holocaust because others were also targeted isn't "watering it down?"

    Conservative bad-faith false-equivalence ultra-hypocrisy is so tiresome.

    --
    "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  349. Re:Trump's campaign manager and personal lawyer... by Cmdln+Daco · · Score: 1

    Oh, another Trumpkin who thinks Trump is a Jesus like beacon of morality and honesty in a dark swamp of corruption.

    No, I consider Trump to be something unpleasant but useful. He's the Drano of politics. Nobody wants a glass of Drano on the dinner table, but if you keep a bottle of it under the sink you can use it flush all kinds of unpleasant shit and scum away.

  350. Re:And two years of investigations found none of i by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's the other party. Trump is a pachyderm.

    Gotta disagree with you there. Trump has been a Clintonite Democrat his entire life and simply chose to run as a Republican on the same issues that the Clintons have always run on, plus a few crumbs to the right because he needs to pander to them for their votes. So what happened? We had an attempted coup d'etat and a simmering civil war with street fighting across the country because the wrong centrist Clintonite Democrat won. So what really happened? Clinton had already sold out the country to every foreign intelligence agency on Earth and they were trying to protect and recover their investment. Remember the "Safe Space" campaign that you were not allowed to disagree with anywhere? That was MPAC, a branch of Al Qaeda. Clinton sold the public school system and the biggest sites on the Internet to Al Qaeda and its state sponsors (Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi) for some kickbacks to her campaign and they called it a homeland security project. If that's what she would sell to our enemies in the middle of a war, imagine how much she sold to our "allies" in NATO. They all lost deals, access, etc when Trump won. So it's not about ideology (unless you're a Muslim terrorist), it's about who has power.

  351. Re:Trump's campaign manager and personal lawyer... by Uberbah · · Score: 1

    Note that you responded with a great deal of butthurt, but no rebuttal. Almost like you can't. Which means you sound like a Hillbot, desperately holding onto the Russian Collusion narrative after Mueller said there was no collusion and there will be no more indictments.

    So dig out a chalkboard and do your best Bart Simpson impression:

    1) Memos were never proven to forgeries
    2) CBS did verify the memos - for the accuracy of their content
    3) So even if the memos were forged copies, the forgeries were true

    Repeat as necessary until those facts start to percolate into that brainpan. Then get back to me when every reporter is fired who parroted propaganda on either Iraq or on Russiagate. Until then, all you have is a pile of wingnut BS.

  352. Re:Trump's campaign manager and personal lawyer... by Uberbah · · Score: 1

    Well, at least you stopped pretending that Russia did nothing.

    Russia did shit, diphsit. Both parties are virulently anti-Russian and have been for over a century. Accusing Russia of trying to favor one over the other is like accusing a gay person of trying to pick a side in an election between a homophobic Catholic and an equally homophobic Mormon. Russia is the same damn country it was in 2012, when the establishment ridiculed Mitt Romney for saying Russia was a threat to the United States.

    Makes you sound likes like a Putin cock sucker and more like a Trump fan. I'm fine with that.

    Speaking of homophobes, no one talks more about sucking another man's cock than homophobic bigots such as yourself. Why is that?

  353. Re:Trump's campaign manager and personal lawyer... by Uberbah · · Score: 1

    I said evidence, not proof.

    You don't have that either. There's as much evidence that Russia interfered in the election as there is that Hillary ordered a hit on Vince Foster: none. What you have is a hunch - and hunches are not evidence.

    We already have Papadopolous, a Trump campaign member, knowing that Russia had stolen DNC emails before wikileaks had ever released them.

    We know that's false as the files were copied far too fast to have been hacked remotely, it was a local copy. And because Wikileaks has denied that Russia gave them the DNC emails. And Wikileaks, unlike 99.99% of the media that has reported on Russiagate, has a 100% record of honesty. This talking point is further bunk as Wikileaks teased the release weeks and even months before the citations of the Trump campaign talking about them.

    Now Trump is talking about Russia attacking a specific target the same day that Russia attacks that target. Yes, unlike Birtherism that does count as actual evidence that Trump had inside knowledge that a hack was going to happen. It's not proof, but it's sure as hell evidence.

    It's laughable, that's what it is. Russia is a meddling country that wants to spy and hack everything - except for Hillary's unsecured email server. That they left alone out of courtesy, until a Trump joke changed Putin's mind.

    Common, man. This shit is just embarrassing.

  354. Re:Trump's campaign manager and personal lawyer... by quantaman · · Score: 1

    We know that's false as the files were copied far too fast to have been hacked remotely, it was a local copy

    Seriously?

    Rule #1 of having a hacking operation, do your hacking from a machine that's separate from your main network.

    Now, how do you then get the stolen files from that machine to your main network?

    Use a USB stick.

    --
    I stole this Sig
  355. Re:Trump's campaign manager and personal lawyer... by Uberbah · · Score: 1

    Your problem with physics is not my problem. Seriously.

    https://consortiumnews.com/201...

  356. Re:Trump's campaign manager and personal lawyer... by quantaman · · Score: 1

    Your problem with physics is not my problem. Seriously.

    https://consortiumnews.com/201...

    *sigh*

    I'm guessing this is what you mean by "physics"

    July 5, 2016: In the early evening, Eastern Daylight Time, someone working in the EDT time zone with a computer directly connected to the DNC server or DNC Local Area Network, copied 1,976 MegaBytes of data in 87 seconds onto an external storage device. That speed is much faster than what is physically possible with a hack.

    It thus appears that the purported “hack” of the DNC by Guccifer 2.0 (the self-proclaimed WikiLeaks source) was not a hack by Russia or anyone else, but was rather a copy of DNC data onto an external storage device.

    Which is an misunderstanding of stupidly interpreted evidence.

    There's no evidence of the files being transferred off the DNC servers at 22mb/s, there's evidence of the files being written at 22mb/s on July 5th.

    Which is more than a month older than the oldest email!!!!!

    You're not looking at the timestamp of the hack, you're looking at the timestamp of putting the files on a USB for Wikileaks.

    --
    I stole this Sig
  357. Re:Trump's campaign manager and personal lawyer... by Uberbah · · Score: 0

    Which is an misunderstanding of stupidly interpreted evidence. There's no evidence of the files being transferred off the DNC servers at 22mb/s, there's evidence of the files being written at 22mb/s on July 5th.

    You mean July 5th when the "hack" was alleged to have taken place? Like Pootie Poot himself downloaded files and immediately transferred them to a thumb drive for Wikileaks without bothering to spend any time analyzing what he had? Talk about stupidly analyzing evidence.

    This is beating around the bush anyway. What tells anyone with two functioning brain cells is that if this was a real scenario that the government actually wanted to investigate, the first thing Mueller or the FBI would have done is subpoena the DNC servers for a proper forensic analysis. He never bothered to do so. This should bother Russiagate die hards most of all, as there could be proof of a Russian hack buried in firmware or encrypted files, just waiting to be found by an analyst. But it's never happened. Because this was never anything but a pile of Hillbot swiftboating, Mccarthyite BS from the very beginning.

    • Within 24 hours of Clinton's concession speech, top officials gathered "to engineer the case that the election wasn't entirely on the up-and-up...Already, Russian hacking was the centerpiece of the argument."