Mega-Thread: Mueller investigation

[Edge-]

According to John Dowd, Trump had two personas: One, belligerent and bellicose on Twitter. This was not only meant for public consumption, as the investigation was taking a political toll on the president, but also because Trump felt deeply wronged, according to Dowd.

This seems to be his default mode, and his own persecution complex isn't our concern.

And two, he was overwhelmingly cooperative, notwithstanding his own testimony. Thousands of documents that could have been withheld on executive privilege where simply handed over on Dowd's advice, and more to the point, every possible witness was encouraged to meet with Mueller.

Let's not forget, this was all handed over as part of a defense strategy to protect Trump from being directly interviewed by Mueller, something which his own lawyers knew would lead to him being unable to stop from lying to Mueller.

I haven't seen any info on him encouraging staff to talk to Mueller though, do you have a citation on that? Because last I recall the opposite was true, with him freaking out about people internally potentially talking to Mueller and him not knowing who.

Now I don't know how much of that changed after Dowd left, if any, but hearing what was going on behind the scenes, I'm led to believe this anonymous NBC source might be one of those dead ends we've seen before.

We'll see, but it checks out with everything we know thus far. We already have pretty extensive reporting on how the administration is functionally a Thunderdome with cliques looking to one-up each other and knives ready to stab others in the back.

[Dacien]

I haven't seen any info on him encouraging staff to talk to Mueller though, do you have a citation on that? Because last I recall the opposite was true, with him freaking out about people internally potentially talking to Mueller and him not knowing who.

It was in the two-part interview in Byron's York's podcast with John Dowd. Byron York is the Chief Political Correspondent for the Washington Examiner. I'm sure you could google it fairly quick if you're interested.

There is an article on it here.

[Edge-]

It was in the two-part interview in Byron's York's podcast with John Dowd. Byron York is the Chief Political Correspondent for the Washington Examiner. I'm sure you could google it fairly quick if you're interested.

There is an article on it here.

I'm generally pretty skeptical of the Examiner given their political leaning, but I'll try to hunt down the podcast to give it a listen on my commute home (don't have time to read through the full article atm). Thanks for the links.

[Dacien]

We'll see, but it checks out with everything we know thus far. We already have pretty extensive reporting on how the administration is functionally a Thunderdome with cliques looking to one-up each other and knives ready to stab others in the back.

In this era of hysteria and folly, I have to wonder how much of what gets reported is true. After all, we were all told, breathlessly and with ultimate authority, that collusion crimes were bearing down on Trump. That he was flailing around in a panic as the walls closed in.

And none of it was accurate.

- - - Updated - - -

I'm generally pretty skeptical of the Examiner given their political leaning, but I'll try to hunt down the podcast to give it a listen on my commute home (don't have time to read through the full article atm). Thanks for the links.

It found it completely fascinating. And sure, it's hard to know what you can trust, and I suppose Dowd is no different, but the closer I can get to the source the better.

[Edge-]

In this era of hysteria and folly, I have to wonder how much of what gets reported is true. After all, we were all told, breathlessly and with ultimate authority, that collusion crimes were bearing down on Trump. That he was flailing around in a panic as the walls closed in.

And none of it was accurate.

We'll see when we get the full report.

Because as it stands, Barr is far from a trustworthy actor, not just given his recent comments but looking even further back into history - https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2019...report-summary

[Dontrike]

In this era of hysteria and folly, I have to wonder how much of what gets reported is true. After all, we were all told, breathlessly and with ultimate authority, that collusion crimes were bearing down on Trump. That he was flailing around in a panic as the walls closed in.

And none of it was accurate.

What are you talking about? He was flailing constantly, projecting like a mad man, and turning on those that turned on him. How is that not flailing?

[Dacien]

We'll see when we get the full report.

Because as it stands, Barr is far from a trustworthy actor, not just given his recent comments but looking even further back into history - https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2019...report-summary

Fair enough. My personal opinion is this is over. Not politically, because it's still got a lot of gas in the tank politically, but that Trump never engaged in "criminal collusion" (conspiracy, etc.), nor anyone in his orbit. It just wasn't there. Politically there's plenty of gas in the tank, as I said, and I'm inclined to believe Mueller's lawyers when they say there's damaging information in the report. Not criminal, but politically damaging.

But some kind of crime that could fall under the term "collusion" is over, in my estimation.

[I Push Buttons]

I think it's actually worse than that.

People who complied with law enforcement, as required, are worried that they'll be punished for complying with law enforcement as required.

Nobody should ever have to decide between
a) talking to the police, or
b) keeping their job.

And the White House is having exactly that issue.

I mean they will be punished, not by Trump, but by the establishment in general (in the grand scheme)... Those people are in politics, where your career is based on who you know, recommendations, etc. If their identities are revealed, their careers in that line of work are basically done... Testifying against your boss/coworkers probably isn't something your next boss/coworkers would look favorably upon; your name would be tarnished, blacklisted, etc. Even if you did the right thing.

Fringe leftists don't care, though, and want the full un-redacted report released publicly... They not only don't give a shit if those people's careers are ruined, some are actually celebrating it over on various other social media ("Lololol those Trump stooges are going to get their comeuppance! They deserve it!" kind of stupidity)... Little do these idiot fringe leftists realize, however, is that their legitimately retarded sentiment is going to help Trump and other bad people in the future. Because future would-be whistleblowers/people who would testify in the case of wrongdoing will look at this episode and see these people being thrown under the bus and having their lives ruined for doing the right thing, and say 'fuck that', instead opting to keep their mouths shut.

[RaoBurning]

I mean they will be punished, not by Trump, but by the establishment in general (in the grand scheme)... Those people are in politics, where your career is based on who you know, recommendations, etc. If their identities are revealed, their careers in that line of work are basically done... Testifying against your boss/coworkers probably isn't something your next boss/coworkers would look favorably upon; your name would be tarnished, blacklisted, etc. Even if you did the right thing.

Fringe leftists don't care, though, and want the full un-redacted report released publicly... They not only don't give a shit if those people's careers are ruined, some are actually celebrating it over on various other social media ("Lololol those Trump stooges are going to get their comeuppance! They deserve it!" kind of stupidity)... Little do these idiot fringe leftists realize, however, is that their legitimately retarded sentiment is going to help Trump and other bad people in the future. Because future would-be whistleblowers/people who would testify in the case of wrongdoing will look at this episode and see these people being thrown under the bus and having their lives ruined for doing the right thing, and say 'fuck that', instead opting to keep their mouths shut.

I mean, if folks keep working for people who have an adversarial relationship with the truth and thus wouldn't want their employees telling the truth, then yeah I kind of don't care if all of their careers go down in flames. To quote Jim Carrey in his great role yet, "STOP BREAKING THE LAW, ASSHOLE!" I'm not breaking the law right now. It's super easy. So none of my employees, if I had any, would have to lie to law enforcement about my goings on and what have you.

[Daelak]

Fair enough. My personal opinion is this is over. Not politically, because it's still got a lot of gas in the tank politically, but that Trump never engaged in "criminal collusion" (conspiracy, etc.), nor anyone in his orbit. It just wasn't there. Politically there's plenty of gas in the tank, as I said, and I'm inclined to believe Mueller's lawyers when they say there's damaging information in the report. Not criminal, but politically damaging.

But some kind of crime that could fall under the term "collusion" is over, in my estimation.

They didnt say that, and now today, a federal district judge has called out Barr's arrogance and basically telegraphing exactly what Trump has told him to say in public.


Barr has been appointed to do the one thing he has done his entire life; to protect the interests of the Republican party and their presidents.

[I Push Buttons]

I mean, if folks keep working for people who have an adversarial relationship with the truth and thus wouldn't want their employees telling the truth, then yeah I kind of don't care if all of their careers go down in flames. To quote Jim Carrey in his great role yet, "STOP BREAKING THE LAW, ASSHOLE!" I'm not breaking the law right now. It's super easy. So none of my employees, if I had any, would have to lie to law enforcement about my goings on and what have you.

And like I said, with that retarded attitude, MORE people will break the law and MORE people will get away with it because those who would inform on them and testify against them will fear the same kind of reprisal these people potentially face.

[Orbitus]

No. Mueller made a crystal clear conclusion that there was NO COLLUSION and he passed on making a decision regarding obstruction because he couldn't find compelling evidence to support such a conclusion. He left the decision regarding obstruction for Barr and Rosenstein to decide and they made the appropriate legal decision.

- - - Updated - - -


I'm sorry you feel that way. Bye.

Even Fox News analysts are saying there is a case for collusion, but they couldn't get it beyond a shadow of a doubt.

https://thehill.com/homenews/media/4...was-correct-on

- - - Updated - - -

At this time when its common knowledge its a conspiracy theory, i think we dont need arguments anymore. Its like argueing with a flatearther, most of the time I would say because its round. Give me proof its flat, its not my job to prove its round

So does that include Fox News? Because even they are saying that there was some collusion.

[RaoBurning]

And like I said, with that retarded attitude, MORE people will break the law and MORE people will get away with it because those who would inform on them and testify against them will fear the same kind of reprisal these people potentially face.

If people are afraid of being testified against, they should probably stop breaking the law. Should probably add "retribution against whistleblowers" as an illegal act. Seems like a good idea.

[I Push Buttons]

If people are afraid of being testified against, they should probably stop breaking the law. Should probably add "retribution against whistleblowers" as an illegal act. Seems like a good idea.

They're not afraid of being testified against, they're afraid of having their careers ruined by being outed as informants.

[Dacien]

Even Fox News analysts are saying there is a case for collusion, but they couldn't get it beyond a shadow of a doubt.

https://thehill.com/homenews/media/4...was-correct-on

- - - Updated - - -



So does that include Fox News? Because even they are saying that there was some collusion.

Napolitano's line of thinking is that if there was no evidence, that would have been the language used in Barr's letter.

My line of thinking is that suspicion exists in the absence of evidence. Take the Trump Tower meeting, and I'll oversimplify here. If all parties involved are telling the story that it was an offer of information on Hillary that ended up being a whole lot of nothing, Mueller would be unable to establish that a conspiracy took place. That doesn't mean there's evidence, it means there was suspicion, but Mueller would have been unable to establish that a conspiracy took place. And I'm sure there are plenty of instances such as this.

For what it's worth, even if Veselnitskaya had provided "official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary", I don't think this would rise to the level of criminality. For one thing, if it did, that would be a conspiracy in and of itself to even attempt to go through with it. As many are wont to say, just because you weren't successful in a crime doesn't make it any less of a crime to attempt to do so. Well it wasn't. That would have been Mueller's first indictment. It's simply not a crime to be receptive to damaging intel on a political opponent sourced from a foreign entity. Unseemly, demonstrative of the seedy underbelly of politics? Absolutely. But not a crime.

But suppose there are other instances where suspicion exists, and Mueller simply was unable to obtain evidence that any crime was committed. Again, he would be "unable to establish" that a crime was committed.

We're all sort of taking shots in the dark while we wait for Mueller's report, and this is my best estimation. Evidence is a word that is quite elastic. It indicates guilt but carries none of the burden of conformity to what actually happened. If I went out for ice cream and somebody was murdered after I left the store, the security footage would be "evidence" that I'm a killer. I think we might see some of that same sort of elasticity in the Mueller report, but that's about it.

[Breccia]

If all parties involved are telling the story that it was an offer of information on Hillary that ended up being a whole lot of nothing, Mueller would be unable to establish that a conspiracy took place.

Just a reminder: meeting with a hostile foreign power with the intent to gather stolen information about an opposing political party is, in fact, evidence of a crime. You don't get to call it "a whole lot of nothing" (well, at least, not honestly) just because they didn't have the info. If you approach a woman (or dude, whatever works for you bro) and say "I will pay you $130,000 for sex" and she/he/smismar says "I'm a cop and you're under arrest" you don't get to say "WHOA WHOA WHOA! You can't arrest me until you suck my dick first!"

[Dacien]

Just a reminder: meeting with a hostile foreign power with the intent to gather stolen information about an opposing political party is, in fact, evidence of a crime. You don't get to call it "a whole lot of nothing" (well, at least, not honestly) just because they didn't have the info. If you approach a woman (or dude, whatever works for you bro) and say "I will pay you $130,000 for sex" and she/he/smismar says "I'm a cop and you're under arrest" you don't get to say "WHOA WHOA WHOA! You can't arrest me until you suck my dick first!"

I address this in the post:

"For one thing, if it did, that would be a conspiracy in and of itself to even attempt to go through with it. As many are wont to say, just because you weren't successful in a crime doesn't make it any less of a crime to attempt to do so. Well it wasn't. That would have been Mueller's first indictment. It's simply not a crime to be receptive to damaging intel on a political opponent sourced from a foreign entity. Unseemly, demonstrative of the seedy underbelly of politics? Absolutely. But not a crime."

But more to your point, at no time was it discussed between Goldstone and Don Jr. that this information was stolen. It was simply described as "official documents and information". I would be inclined to agree that if Goldstone was peddling stolen emails, this would be a much different conversation.

To put it another way, If Don Jr. had met for the express purpose of obtaining these "official documents" evidencing misbehavior by Hillary, and obtained these documents, Mueller still wouldn't indict, as long the documents were legally obtained by the provider. And I'm not really trying to convince you; you should already be convinced. If it were a crime, Don Jr. would already be serving a sentence.

[Breccia]

But more to your point, at no time was it discussed between Goldstone and Don Jr. that this information was stolen. It was simply described as "official documents and information".

About Clinton.

From Russia.

Strike two. Keep trying.

[Dacien]

About Clinton.

From Russia.

Strike two. Keep trying.

Sure, but that's not a crime. It really doesn't matter who it's coming from. Foreign-sourced intel on a political opponent may be unseemly, but it's not a crime. The only instance I'd be inclined to agree is if Don Jr. was expressly told that the information was illegally obtained, and still sought it out.

[Breccia]

Sure, but that's not a crime.

Hey remember that time (hostile) foreign powers were allowed to contribute to a federal election campaign?

Yeah, neither do I.

Even if I accept the lame-ass limp-dick IMPOTUS defense that they, somehow, thought the info from the Kremlin was obtained honestly, which even @Dacien does not, but even if you did, you'd still have to admit they conspired to work with Russia -- yes that's collusion -- to commit a felony.

Strike three. You're out.