The Mueller report for all of us to see

originally posted by: scraedtosleep
a reply to: Grambler

Not a lot of new info to be honest that I see on collusion. Russians released dirt to help trump, trump liked the dirt, but no illegal activity from anyone connected to trump or any american working with russians

Would the trump admins amount of pleasure in that info coming from russia not be a good reason for some dems to suspect them? Probable cause perhaps?

There was absolute probably cause for all facets of the investigation. Still much going on behind the scenes as the redactions show. There was plenty of conspiring with the Russians with several folks. They can't tie if back to Trump, but people he associated with look pretty guilty.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Grambler

Well, now we know that anonymous New York Times Op Ed from a White House official was real.

More clarification please. I am unfamilair with your vague reference.

THanks

originally posted by: sligtlyskeptical

originally posted by: scraedtosleep
a reply to: Grambler

Not a lot of new info to be honest that I see on collusion. Russians released dirt to help trump, trump liked the dirt, but no illegal activity from anyone connected to trump or any american working with russians

Would the trump admins amount of pleasure in that info coming from russia not be a good reason for some dems to suspect them? Probable cause perhaps?

There was absolute probably cause for all facets of the investigation. Still much going on behind the scenes as the redactions show. There was plenty of conspiring with the Russians with several folks. They can't tie if back to Trump, but people he associated with look pretty guilty.

So, you are in favor of guilt by association Senator McCarthy?

LOL

Putin complained to oligarchs that he had no contacts in Trumpworld after election

Vladimir Putin fretted to a group of oligarchs that he had no real contacts in Donald Trump’s inner circle and struggled to reach the president-elect in the days after the 2016 election, according to Robert Mueller’s special counsel report released on Thursday.

The Russian leader was so anxious to contact Trump that he reportedly had an intermediary cold-call Trump’s then-spokesperson, Hope Hicks, on her cellphone in the middle of the night after the Republican nominee claimed victory, according to the report.

“At approximately 3 a.m. on election night, Trump Campaign press secretary Hope Hicks received a telephone call on her personal cell phone from a person who sounded foreign but was calling from a number with a DC area code,” said the report. “Although Hicks had a hard time understanding the person, she could make out the words ‘Putin call.’"

a reply to: Krakatoa

Sorry, I've used all my free New York Times clicks, but the entire text of the Op Ed can be read here.

peterlance.com...

I work for the president but like-minded colleagues and I have vowed to thwart parts of his agenda and his worst inclinations.
President Trump is facing a test to his presidency unlike any faced by a modern American leader.
It’s not just that the special counsel looms large. Or that the country is bitterly divided over Mr. Trump’s leadership. Or even that his party might well lose the House to an opposition hellbent on his downfall.
The dilemma — which he does not fully grasp — is that many of the senior officials in his own administration are working diligently from within to frustrate parts of his agenda and his worst inclinations.
I would know. I am one of them.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

All part of The Brilliant Strategy as we can see more clearly now 😎

a reply to: Sookiechacha

And he still won.

Tired of winning yet ?

a reply to: Grambler

Been reading this for the last ~2 hours, great read

Essentially this is what we've been saying all along, although seeing the investigation in-depth is always interesting. Going to take a long hard look at the DNC hack allegations, etc and see if they are supported by *anything* other than CrowdStrike's findings

The minutia is interesting, but in the end it is clear there is no evidence to suggest any sort of conspiracy between Trump and these actors nor is there evidence to support the talking heads' assertion of "obstruction" Of course there can be no corrupt intent when the underlying crime never happened, but as Barr laid out there were ample opportunities where Trump could've legitimately exercised his authority but chose not to do so

This is a great day for the United States

a reply to: Sookiechacha

No evidence to support any sort of conspiracy.

No evidence to support charges for obstruction.

The key takeaway. Everything else is merely [interesting] minutia that must be read in that context.

EDIT: Comey, McCabe, Yates and soon to be many others threw away their careers for absolutely nothing That is karmic justice

EDIT2: The Russia spy stuff is hardly a surprise. This back and forth intelligence nonsense is standard operating procedure, boring day to day stuff that goes on around the clock among the major powers.

We now know that Trump's actions against the special counsel—so-called obstruction—were merely the protests of an innocent man being framed by his government.

originally posted by: Arnie123
I love Trumps reaction to the independent counsel, "I'm #ed", because he had heard about all the BS it comes with.

Told Sessions, "You're suppose to protect me".

Here we learn that Trump doesn't fear about getting "caught", rather, the BS a special counsel brings with.

However, knowing Trumps cool and just go along with it hail mary, figured just let it complete.

It's totally understandable as to why he was concerned with that.

interesting quote for sure! but to be fair, after reading the whole part the reason for this reaction wasn't because he felt guilty (i think he didn't even know what guilt is). you date the most pretty girl in town and after the first kiss she is willing to come to your home, but after entering the house you learn that the toilet exploded and the # still floods the rooms - thats how trump felt, i think.

a reply to: sligtlyskeptical

There was plenty of conspiring with the Russians with several folks.

And yet, Mueller says in his indictment of the Russians:

Some Defendants, posing as US persons and without revealing their Russian association, communicated with unwitting individuals associated with the Trump Campaign and with other political activists to seek to coordinate political activities.

And Rod Rosenstein says at the press conference:

"There is no allegation in the indictment that any American was a knowing participant in the alleged unlawful activity," 

How do you reconcile that with your assertion?

Wow, folks Obama *really* dropped the ball on this one didn't he?

Why did he think a "stern talking to" and a warning to "knock it off" was an appropriate response?

What a castrado, low-IQ fool that Soetoro (err, Obama)

originally posted by: Tartuffe
We now know that Trump's actions against the special counsel—so-called obstruction—were merely the protests of an innocent man being framed by his government.

Spot on

Left wing trash wanted to crucify him for daring to defend himself

Long live free speech and PRESIDENT DONALD JOHN TRUMP

a reply to: JBurns

The Mueller report reveals that several White House officials ignored or refused Trump's orders to "obstruct justice" in their minds. Because they did so, for whatever reason, they avoided indictment themselves. That verifies what the NYT Op Ed claimed.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Yes, and that also avoided indictment (or impeachment, conviction then indictment) for POTUS. That's why he had lawyers and staff, to ensure what he wanted to do wouldn't violate any laws.

As I said, no conspiracy no obstruction

There is no crime called "attempt to obstruct justice" unless you care to cite the relevant section of 18 USC?

This was a witch hunt motivated by politics plain and simple. If I had my way, the perpetrators would literally hang from a rope.

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Grambler

Well, now we know that anonymous New York Times Op Ed from a White House official was real.

More clarification please. I am unfamilair with your vague reference.

THanks

Get use to them, the entire thing is bust, all there is are vague references

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Krakatoa

Sorry, I've used all my free New York Times clicks, but the entire text of the Op Ed can be read here.

peterlance.com...

I work for the president but like-minded colleagues and I have vowed to thwart parts of his agenda and his worst inclinations.
President Trump is facing a test to his presidency unlike any faced by a modern American leader.
It’s not just that the special counsel looms large. Or that the country is bitterly divided over Mr. Trump’s leadership. Or even that his party might well lose the House to an opposition hellbent on his downfall.
The dilemma — which he does not fully grasp — is that many of the senior officials in his own administration are working diligently from within to frustrate parts of his agenda and his worst inclinations.
I would know. I am one of them.

So, you are admitting that there was a coup attempt to unseat a legally and duly elected president of the United States, led by the opposing party?

Welcome to the world of reality.

Vindication.

Its a sorry state of affairs when one side cant get over it and actually try to work and get some work done for the people theyre supposed to rep. What a waste of time.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: JBurns

The Mueller report reveals that several White House officials ignored or refused Trump's orders to "obstruct justice" in their minds. Because they did so, for whatever reason, they avoided indictment themselves. That verifies what the NYT Op Ed claimed.

You have a hard time accepting, "No conspiracy to obstruct".

Well, whatever, we won. 'nuff said and done, lets get back to work 😌