Mueller Speaks
Robert Mueller spoke in public today. This was a newsworthy event because it is the first time he has done so since the start of his tenure as the special counsel investigating the 2016 election, Russian interference, and Donald Trump's obstruction of justice. If Mueller has his way about it, it will also be the last public statement he makes on any of these subjects. However, Mueller also announced his office was closing and he was ending his status as a Justice Department employee, meaning that as a private citizen there will now be nothing stopping him from testifying before any congressional committees which want to speak with him. Mueller all but begged not to be called by any of these committees, stating as plainly as he could that his written report should be considered as his whole testimony, and that he won't be going beyond its bounds should he appear in person.
This, of course, punts all the decision-making to Nancy Pelosi. Mueller is a careful writer and speaker, with each sentence parsed within an inch of its life. He did not openly call for impeachment proceedings to begin -- he didn't even use what President Trump now calls "the I-word" -- but he also made it pretty plain that the decision as to what happens next is entirely up to Congress, and that impeachment was not out of the question at all.
Reportedly, Mueller has been in consultation with at least some of the House committee chairs who want to hear from him. So far, what has been reported is that Mueller is not adverse to testifying, but that his main objective (from his point of view) is that any such appearance not be a media spectacle. He's offering to testify in front of a closed hearing (with no public audience present and no cameras rolling), but then he wouldn't object to a full transcript of that testimony immediately being made public, after the fact. If all these reports are accurate, it's pretty plain to see that Mueller's key objective is that there be no cameras, period. He knows what these hearings can be like, both on camera and off. He's testified to Congress (on other subjects) dozens of times before, so he is no stranger to the witness chair.
This is all in keeping with Mueller's low-key public approach to this investigation. He's never wanted to "become the story himself" in the way which most notably happened with Ken Starr's investigation of Bill Clinton. Mueller knows full well that if he testifies to a House committee and the cameras are rolling, that it would be nothing short of a political and media circus. Most of the questions would be designed to provide some juicy soundbites for the evening news, in other words. Little actual substance would be discussed in such a frenzy. Mueller doesn't seem to be concerned with his testimony becoming public -- after the fact, in a written transcript -- but wants to avoid the emotional impact of "gotcha" questions and the like. So far, the House committee chairs have not agreed to this, but if it becomes the only way to get him to appear without subpoenaing him, this may wind up being the way it happens.
Mueller, of course, could get subpoenaed anyway. It's not usually up to the witness to decide how he's going to testify, after all. The committee chairs could compel his testimony in an open hearing, with cameras rolling, and Mueller would have to comply. So at this point, nobody knows how it will all play out. Mueller ending his employment with the Justice Department actually makes this easier, since he's now merely a private citizen who doesn't have to pay any more attention to the attorney general as any other private citizen. The department couldn't legally block his testimony, in the way that it can with current employees.
Nancy Pelosi now has a few choices as to what happens next. She could direct the committee chairs to: (1) agree to Mueller's terms and have him testify off-camera, (2) ignore Mueller's terms and subpoena him to testify, but decide on her own to hold a closed hearing, (3) subpoena Mueller for testimony and announce that the cameras will indeed roll during it, or (4) just move straight to impeachment and open an impeachment inquiry. Oh, I suppose there is also: (5) decide that Mueller's testimony will be not worth the time and announce that no committee would be calling him to a hearing. But that doesn't seem very likely, which is why it didn't immediately spring to mind.
Of all of those choices, my bet would be on either (1) or (3). Having the cameras rolling so far has been a priority of the committee chairs, but Pelosi could overrule them and tell them to accept Mueller's terms. Or she could decide that the cameras will roll, even if it means having to subpoena Mueller. Either way, I doubt she's ready to pull the trigger on impeachment.
Mueller's testimony, however, is going to be as dense and (at times) as impenetrable as his statement today. He's made that crystal clear. He is going to bend over backwards to essentially do nothing but read passages from his written report, and he is going to fight any attempt to probe peripheral subjects. He's not a legal lightweight (like, say, Jeff Sessions) who will get rattled or flustered by congressmen firing questions at him. He's already shown this steely resolve in past testimony before Congress, in fact. So Democrats should really not expect any new bombshell information, beyond perhaps exploring the decision-making process which surrounded the production of his report, the attorney general's summary of his report, and the public release of the redacted version of his report. Some are already pointing out that Mueller and Attorney General William Barr aren't exactly on the same page in what they've said about this process, so that'd be about the only new thing which Mueller could be expected to reveal.
Democrats, given the chance to ask Mueller questions in sworn testimony, are going to be digging for all they can get. But if Mueller refuses to answer anything beyond what's in his report (as he gave every indication of doing today), then the hearing is going to be just as frustrating to Democrats as Mueller's report was when it was released.
The ball is now squarely in Nancy Pelosi's court. She's got to decide what happens next. Mueller's statement today could be read as him suggesting to Pelosi that she skip asking him to testify and move straight to impeachment, but that is obviously open to interpretation. Pelosi has been trying to soft-pedal the impeachment option all along, and it's doubtful that anything Mueller had to say today is going to change that any time soon. It may increase the pressure on Pelosi to pull the trigger from within her own caucus, but so far she's been able to withstand such pressure.
What happens next is anyone's guess, but even if Mueller is forced to testify before an open hearing, with cameras rolling, he issued a very clear warning today that he's going to do everything within his power to keep his testimony as close as possible to what he's already written. This was his real unstated message today, issued in advance in an effort to lower everyone's expectations for what his testimony will likely contain. He probably won't succeed in doing so, but that was the biggest takeaway I heard from hearing Mueller speak for the first time today.
-- Chris Weigant
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
What struck me is that if Mueller testify before Congress like he spoke today - tone and substance - then I suggest Congress get someone (Robert De Nero, for example?) to read our loud the Mueller report and Americans who have not read any of it yet would get more out of it that way. Seriously.
And he (De Nero) would only have to read out loud the two introductions and the two executive summaries of the two volumes of the Mueller report.
Note to Congress - be careful what you wish for!
What I wish Nancy would do is appoint a committee - perhaps composed of the heads of relevant other committees, to be the "Impeachment Committee". The Judiciary as well as other committees dealing with OTHER DJT crimes/failures. The Mueller investigation was narrow in scope and, while damning, by no means covers the full range of DJT Administration misdeeds.
They all should continue their investigations under the central umbrella of the Impeachment committee. Emoluments, Security, Financial Crimes, etc. should be focused on whether DJT and/or his subordinates, have acted not just "criminally", but also failed to uphold their oaths, etc. There should be lots of hearings - they should be coordinated to help build the case of unfitness, versus being in competition or being siloed, as though the other investigations aren't happening.
IOW, proceed more or less as planned, but under an umbrella of pre-impeachment instead of there just being a bunch of committees doing investigations with no coordination or cooperation.
THEN the House can go through the formal steps of drafting articles and putting them to vote.
DJT is unfit for multiple reasons and should be impeached for them all. If Dems handle it effectively, Repubs could still obstruct in the Senate but they'd look really, really bad. DJT would not be "exonerated" - it would be republican party-over-country dereliction of duty.
I think showing GOP dereliction in the face of massive evidence of DJT, Pence, & key figures in the adminstration's criminality and unfitness would be a BLESSING for Dems as we approach 2020. I don't think it would help Repubs at all, no matter how they tried to spin it. And they would try to spin it, just as they will spin Dem failure to impeach. They will spin because that's SOP - but we KNOW that and can counter.
When Mueller states his testimony won't go beyond the scope of his written report, does he mean the redacted or un-redacted version? Would public testimony substantially reduce or eliminate the black boxes? That possibility seems a good reason for Pelosi to issue the subpoena....or not, depending on how negotiations with M go down.
Mueller all but begged not to be called by any of these committees, stating as plainly as he could that his written report should be considered as his whole testimony, and that he won't be going beyond its bounds should he appear in person.
Yep.. Dumbocrats in Congress would be total MORONS to try and force Mueller to testify..
I expect Dumbocrats to do just that..
So at this point, nobody knows how it will all play out.
O come now.. EVERYONE knows how it's going to play out..
Democrats are going to slink away, tails tucked between their legs and let Mueller ride off into the sunset..
This was his real unstated message today, issued in advance in an effort to lower everyone's expectations for what his testimony will likely contain. He probably won't succeed in doing so, but that was the biggest takeaway I heard from hearing Mueller speak for the first time today.
Agreed...
The message that Mueller will give if he is forced to testify will be the same message he gave with his report..
NO COLLUSION...
AND
Iffy Obstruction that it's up to the AG or Congress to determine if it was truly obstruction...
Liz,
What struck me is that if Mueller testify before Congress like he spoke today - tone and substance - then I suggest Congress get someone (Robert De Nero, for example?) to read our loud the Mueller report and Americans who have not read any of it yet would get more out of it that way. Seriously.
That's already been done..
Democrats read the report aloud and America hater John Cusack joined in...
The report says what it says..
NO COLLUSION
IFFY OBSTRUCTION..
If the Democrats feel there was obstruction, let them impeach President Trump..
I DARE them to do so..
The Mueller investigation was narrow in scope and, while damning, by no means covers the full range of DJT Administration misdeeds.
Iddn't it funny how ya'all claimed that the Mueller probe was so broad that it's bound to catch SOMETHING illegal that involves Trump or his family..
NOW that that didn't happen, all of the sudden the tune changes.. :D
I don't think it would help Repubs at all, no matter how they tried to spin it.
Despite ALL the facts to the contrary.. :D
‘The dam has burst’: Liberals warn Democrats risk backlash by not impeaching Trump
Mueller declines to clear Trump in first statements on Russia Investigation
Robert Mueller made his first public statement on the Trump-Russia investigation on May 29, 2019. "Charging the president with a crime was not an option we could consider," he said.
Leading Democrats remain fearful that impeaching President Donald Trump will bolster his re-election campaign.
But if Robert Mueller’s brief, unexpected statement did anything Wednesday, it clarified that a Democratic Party that does not embrace impeachment still faces a potentially sizable political risk — especially from core supporters demanding more loudly than ever before that the House try to remove Trump from office.
“There is a real danger if Democrats fail to have message clarity and moral clarity when it comes to this,” said Ezra Levin, co-founder of the influential liberal activist group Indivisible. “There will be a real question of how they’ll ever motivate people to vote for them.”
https://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/article230956313.html
Once again, President Trump has maneuvered Democrats into a perfect LOSE-LOSE situation... :D
If they impeach, Independents and NPAs will flock to President Trump by the millions..
If they don't impeach, the Democrat base will stay home by the millions on election day 2020...
PURE UNADULTERATED GENIUS!!!!
You just HAVE to admire how President Trump has played the Democrat Party... :D
It wouldn't surprise me a bit to learn that Mueller is secretly on President Trump's pay roll..
Goading the Democrats into doing something really really stoopid..
With one exception, everyone here agrees that impeaching the President would be a bone-headed move by the Democrats...
The tag team of Trump/Mueller may just goad the Dumbocrats into that bone-headed move... :D
Less than 30% of the American people think impeachment is a good idea...
But yea... Go ahead Democrats.. Impeach.. The American people will treat ya'all as liberators.. :eyeroll:
I honestly don't believe that Democrats could be so stoopid as to actually impeach the President...
But I do have one prediction to make..
If the Democrats ARE that stoopid and DO start impeachment proceedings.....
All the Democrats here who said that impeachment is a bad idea....??? ALL of them will have a change of heart and agree that impeachment is definitely the best way to proceed..
To paraphrase Captain Montgomery Scott..
"Predicting the actions of Party Slaves?? That's easy. It's reading Klingon that's hard..."
:D
“This is such a shit show for Dems. They should be talking healthcare and instead they are chasing their tails on something voters don’t have the stomach for.”
-Anonymous Democrat Consultant
Since it's poker night tonight.. :D
Robert Mueller comments on Russia probe leave Nancy Pelosi holding 'a pair of deuces:' Geraldo Rivera
While some Democrats are desperate to go all in with impeaching President Trump, Special Counsel Robert Mueller has just dealt House Speaker Nancy Pelosi a "pair of deuces," according to Fox News' Geraldo Rivera.
Rivera, speaking on "The Five" Wednesday, said Pelosi might be forced to convince those in her party to fold their impeachment hand in the wake of Special Counsel Mueller's rare public statements.
"If this was cards, Mueller dealt Pelosi a pair of deuces," Rivera opined. "She's holding a pair of deuces now, do you go forward with impeachment with a pair of deuces?"
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/geraldo-rivera-pelosi-trump-russia-mueller
Rivera is being generous...
Pelosi has a busted flush...
hehehehe The more things change....
Sanders supporters fearful DNC now backing Biden like it backed Clinton: report
Sanders courts big donors to boost his 2020 campaign despite calling out his opponents for doing the same
What happened to getting big money out of politics? The Heritage Foundation senior writer Kelsey Bolar reacts.
Some supporters of 2020 Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders say they are seeing a repeat of the Democratic National Committee’s 2016 treatment of their candidate, according to a report.
These Sanders supporters claim the DNC leadership is giving preferential treatment to 2020 frontrunner Joe Biden, after the former vice president's surge in the polls, just as they did Hillary Clinton three years ago, the Washington Times reported.
The supporters of Sanders, a U.S. senator from Vermont, say they mistrust polls showing Biden holding a commanding lead over the 23-candidate Democratic field, and some say they may stage another revolt at the party's 2020 national convention in Milwaukee, just as they did in Philadelphia in 2016, if Biden gets the nomination.
Laurie Cestnick, a Sanders supporter who founded Occupy DNC, told the Washington Times they’re frustrated that the mainstream media doesn’t cover many of their candidate's events.
“The mainstream media and the DNC are colluding against the American people," she said. "That’s what it feels like. It’s the same thing all over again."
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/sanders-supporters-fearful-dnc-and-mainstream-media-colluding-against-americans
...The more things stay the same.. :D
What IS it about Democrats, anyways??
The path to transparency
Transparency is essential in windows and in governance. It’s the window that gives a clear view of the workings of government. Now that President Trump has authorized the declassification of information about government surveillance during the 2016 presidential election, it’s important to remember that transparency is neither red nor blue.
It’s important to accurately reckon the difference between patriot and scoundrel. In the wake of the Mueller report declining to hold Mr. Trump culpable for a crime, the president took the next logical step toward closing the book. He asked Attorney General William Barr to declassify intelligence tied to the Obama administration’s opening the domestic spying operation on the Trump campaign in the first place.
Declassifying material presented to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Court (FISA) should shine a light on the legitimacy of the targeting of Trump associates. “I want all the documents around the FISA warrant application released,” Senate Judiciary Chairman Lindsey Graham told Fox News. “I want to find out exactly how the counterintelligence operation began. I think transparency is good for the American people. Not one Democrat seems to care.”
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/may/28/editorial-declassifying-the-origins-of-the-russia-/
It's ALL going to come out....
Democrats are crapping in their britches and rightly so...
What a great run-up it's going to be to the 2020 Election.. :D
Would public testimony substantially reduce or eliminate the black boxes?
No... By law (a law DEMOCRATS created incidentally) that information cannot be released except under the most unique of circumstances...
Like impeachment...
You should know that, TS...
Further, it's less than 2% of the total report.. Do you HONESTLY believe you are going to find your smoking gun in that?? :D
COLLUSION: NONE.. ZERO... ZILCH.... NADA
OBSTRUCTION: Ambiguous...
That's the Mueller report in a nutshell...
If Congress doesn't like it, they can impeach..
But they can't be THAT stoopid... Can they??
Yep.. Dumbocrats in Congress would be total MORONS to try and force Mueller to testify..
I expect Dumbocrats to do just that..
So at this point, nobody knows how it will all play out.
O come now.. EVERYONE knows how it's going to play out..
Democrats are going to slink away, tails tucked between their legs and let Mueller ride off into the sunset..
Yea, little contradictory there.. :D
What can I say.. It was early and I hadn't had my morning 3 diet cokes.. :D
Sue me.. :D
Mueller Just Proved His Entire Operation Was A Political Hit Job That Trampled The Rule Of Law
If there were any doubts about Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s political intentions, his unprecedented press conference on Wednesday should put them all to rest. As he made abundantly clear during his doddering reading of a prepared statement that repeatedly contradicted itself, Mueller had no interest in the equal application of the rule of law. He gave the game, and his nakedly political intentions, away repeatedly throughout his statement.
“It is important that the office’s written work speak for itself,” Mueller said, referring to his office’s 448-page report. Mueller’s report was released to the public by Attorney General William Barr nearly six weeks ago. The entire report, minus limited redactions required by law, has been publicly available, pored through, and dissected. Its contents have been discussed ad nauseum in print and on television. The report has been speaking for itself since April 18, when it was released.
If it’s important for the work to speak for itself, then why did Mueller schedule a press conference in which he would speak for it weeks after it was released? The statement, given the venue in which it was provided, is self-refuting.
https://thefederalist.com/2019/05/29/mueller-just-proved-his-entire-operation-was-a-political-hit-job-that-trampled-the-rule-of-law/
Well, that's a little harsh..
But it makes some great points..
[4] Michale
"NO COLLUSION..."
NOT TRUE.
I know subtly and nuance are beyond your intellectual grasp.
Mueller found PLENTY instances of collusion by VARIOUS INDIVIDUALS ASSOCIATED with the TRUMP CAMPAIGN.
What he did not FIND was ENOUGH evidence to support a
charge of a DELIBERATE COORDINATED CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY taking place among those individuals.
BIG DIFFERENCE.
[5] Michale
"IFFY OBSTRUCTION.."
At least you FINALLY acknowledge the possibility of OBSTRUCTION.
By all means, let The HOUSE continue with the investigations. Call it an Impeachment investigation if you want, or not, it doesn't matter.
The HOUSE doesn't have to take a FORMAL vote on Impeachment. They could always stop just short of that and pass a MOTION OF CENSURE.
They might even pick up a lot of Republican votes for CENSURE.
[6] Michale
"Iddn't it funny how ya'all claimed that the Mueller probe was so broad that it's bound to catch SOMETHING illegal that involves Trump or his family..
NOW that that didn't happen, all of the sudden the tune changes.. :D"
IT WASN'T that BROAD. In Fact, in was quite LIMITED. It dealt with only TWO Subjects:
1) Russian interference in the 2016 campaign.
2) Possible obstruction of the investigation into that interference.
THAT'S IT
Other things, like:
Wire and Bank Fraud regarding Trump company taxes, involving members of Trump's family like Jared and Ivanka
Illegal financial transactions involving the Trump inauguration committee
Hush money payments to Stormy Daniels etc.
Violations of the emoluments clause
were all BEYOND Mueller's SCOPE, and are STILL being handled ELSEWHERE, such as by the Attorney General of NEW YORK STATE
JM,
At least you FINALLY acknowledge the possibility of OBSTRUCTION.
I have never denied ya'all's obsession with Obstruction..
I simply point out that it's nothing but 'Whataboutism'.. A participation trophy because ya'all lost on the ONLY question that matters..
Did President Trump et al collude with Russians to win the election...
The answer is an unequivocal and resounding NO..
But YOU won't concede that, will you??
So, who is the one who is unwilling to acknowledge the facts???
Apparently, it's ya'all..
By all means, let The HOUSE continue with the investigations. Call it an Impeachment investigation if you want, or not, it doesn't matter.
I don't care about it.. Unless the Democrats formalize it as impeachment, they will lose in the courts..
It's THAT simple..
IT WASN'T that BROAD.
That's not what ya'all said prior to the reports release..
Ya'all said the exact opposite.. That Mueller will go wherever he wants to go..
Like I said.. The tune changes when ya'all lost...
I'll get to the rest in a bit.. Gotta run..
[7] Michale
[9] Michale
AGAIN. Impeachment isn't a foregone conclusion. Trump is NOT a GENIUS, and Pelosi is NO DUMMY.
CENSURE is an ALTERNATIVE. And just as damaging to Trump with the drip drip of investigation findings during the middle of a presidential campaign.
[20] Michale
"Did President Trump et al collude with Russians to win the election...
The answer is an unequivocal and resounding NO.."
AGAIN, NOT TRUE. SEE ABOVE. It was also not for lack of TRYING. OTHERWISE Donald JR would not have been so EAGER to receive DIRT on Clinton from the RUSSIANS, and so DISAPPOINTED when he DID NOT.
"I don't care about it.. Unless the Democrats formalize it as impeachment, they will lose in the courts.."
AGAIN, shows your COMPLETE LACK of UNDERSTANDING. As courts are ALREADY UPHOLDING the POWER of CONGRESS to INVESTIGATE and ISSUE SUBPOENAS.
"IT WASN'T that BROAD.
That's not what ya'all said prior to the reports release..
Ya'all said the exact opposite.. That Mueller will go wherever he wants to go.."
AGAIN, NOT EXACTLY WHAT WAS SAID.
Mueller had the authority to go wherever the investigation took him. But Mueller himself, despite Republican hysteria that he would do so, limited himself to the TWO main areas.
AGAIN, BIG DIFFERENCE
CENSURE is an ALTERNATIVE.
Yea??
Try telling that to the Democrat base..
"We're not going to impeach.. We're just going to censure..."
:eyeroll:
If you think censure is an alternative, you haven't been paying attention since Nov of 2016..
I doubt you'll find ANYONE here who supports censure over impeachment..
AGAIN, NOT TRUE. SEE ABOVE.
I know you believe that..
But the facts are the facts...
“did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.”
-Mueller Report
There was NO COLLUSION... PERIOD
Mueller had the authority to go wherever the investigation took him. But Mueller himself, despite Republican hysteria that he would do so, limited himself to the TWO main areas.
So, despite claiming that Mueller was ya'all's White Knight, The TRUMP SLAYER....
NOW, because you didn't get what you want, NOW you claim that Mueller limited himself..
Is THAT ya'all's claim now??
AGAIN, shows your COMPLETE LACK of UNDERSTANDING. As courts are ALREADY UPHOLDING the POWER of CONGRESS to INVESTIGATE and ISSUE SUBPOENAS.
And yet, how many documents and testimony has Democrats got??
NONE... ZERO... ZILCH... NADA...
Do I have to go over all your losses AGAIN??
Well, OK...
Russia Collusion.. Dims LOST...
Releasing the full un-redacted report.. Dims LOST....
McGahn appears before the House.. Dims LOST.....
AG Barr appears before the House... Dims LOST....
Mueller appears before the House... Dims LOST...
And NOW you want to claim that ya'all are REALLY winning!!!????
OK, Charlie Sheen.. If you say so.. :D
The only court that matters is the SCOTUS court..
And what have the Dims done there???
***LOST***
You seeing the pattern here sunshine??
Democrats Lose...
Trump WINS....
"Mueller, we need to hear more.."
-Robert DeNiro
"Robert DeNiro, frak you and the horse you rode in on.."
-Robert Mueller
:D
@Liz
If you're not at the Biden table, then, sorry to say, you are at the "kiddie" table.
Heh
Now THAT's funny... :D
Let me lay it out succinctly and simply..
As long as ya'all can't acknowledge that President Trump et al is completely innocent of Russia collusion...
Ya'all will lose each and every argument or debate..
Because by failing to acknowledge the basic facts you are proving that you do not have a grip on reality...
By all means.. Continue to hold on to the delusion.. Makes my job here so much easier.. :D
As long as ya'all can't acknowledge that President Trump et al is completely innocent of Russia collusion...
As long as you continue to post false claims and assertions you reveal your true colours and it ain't pretty.
By the way, I'm still waiting for your response on the last thread.
Makes my job here so much easier.. :D
I hate to break it to ya but, you were fired a long time ago.
EM (28)
Hilarious! Well said. Hopefully my scrolling finger will get another break when he goes away again.
[23] Michale
“did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.”
-Mueller Report
"There was NO COLLUSION... PERIOD"
AGAIN, NOT TRUE AND NOT WHAT WAS SAID. YOU EVEN QUOTED SO DIRECTLY ABOVE.
The KEY WORDS ARE "CONSPIRED OR COORDINATED"
THERE WAS COLLUSION, IT SIMPLY WAS A GROUP PLAN.
THERE WAS COLLUSION, PERIOD.
I MEAN IT SIMPLY WAS NOT A GROUP PLAN
As long as you continue to post false claims and assertions you reveal your true colours and it ain't pretty.
WHich false assertion is that??
That there was not sufficient evidence to find Trump et al was guilty of collusion???
It's in Mueller's own words...
Must you yell so?
THERE WAS COLLUSION, IT SIMPLY WAS A GROUP PLAN.
THERE WAS COLLUSION, PERIOD.
Like I said... Delusion... Not a firm grip on reality...
But hay.. I'll be your huckleberry..
Do you have ANY facts that prove your delusion???
Any facts at all??? :D
No, of course you don't...
You never do.. :D
lharvey16,
I don't think staying away is the answer.
I hate to break it to ya but, you were fired a long time ago.
And yet.. Here I am and many others are not.. They can't handle the shame of them being wrong about everything.
Must you yell so?
Yes, he must.. He figures the louder he yells it will drown out the facts and reality...
And that reality is Trump is innocent of collusion, conspiracy and/or coordinating with the Russians to win the election...
Hell, if there were any facts that prove Trump guilty, I would SUPPORT impeachment...
And if there were facts to prove Trump guilty of Collusion, then Democrats would be impeaching Trump right now...
But there aren't any facts so Democrats are afraid to impeach...
Hopefully my scrolling finger will get another break when he goes away again.
Says the moron who posts once a month if at all.. :D
I understand.. You have nothing to add to the conversation... You are following the age old adage of remaining silent and be thought a fool, rather than comment and have your idiocy confirmed.. :D
Do you have ANY facts that prove your delusion???
You can't possibly be serious, Michale. I don't think you would recognize a fact on this subject if we made one stand up and slap you upside the head.
Have you forgotten to respond on the last thread?
I don't think staying away is the answer.
Well, it WOULD be easy to get rid of me.. :D
Either A) prove me wrong with FACTS, which is all but impossible or B) say something so horrendous and heinous I wouldn't want to hang around.. :D
You can't possibly be serious, Michale. I don't think you would recognize a fact on this subject if we made one stand up and slap you upside the head.
It would be simple...
Simply quote the part of the Mueller report that says ANY American is guilty of colluding with the Russians to win the election...
Any part at all...
Have you forgotten to respond on the last thread?
Nope.. Just took me some time to locate the information involved.. I had a customer bring in a SONY XBR-65X900C and it took a goodly portion of my time..
But you are correct.. Mueller was talking about his own work and not AG Barr's work..
My apologies for the error..
Obviously Mueller has no problem with pointing the finger at Trump over obstruction even though it ambiguous enough to leave the decision to AG Barr...
If there was even a HINT of guilt over collusion/conspiracy/coordination why did Mueller state so emphatically that there was not enough evidence to support the claim??
Mueller was wishy-washy about obstruction..
Why was he so clear about collusion???
Michale,
And that reality is Trump is innocent of collusion, conspiracy and/or coordinating with the Russians to win the election...
I've been reading the Mueller report in bits when I have a little time.
Today, I was reading about how difficult it was for the Mueller investigation to uncover evidence because it was concealed by witnesses and subjects in the part of the investigation of Russian interference in the presidential election, including links between the Trump campaign and individuals connected to the Russian government.
The following paragraphs are from Vol.I, page 9-10:
The investigation established that several individuals affiliated with the Trump campaign lied to the Special Counsel's office and to Congress about their interactions with Russian-affiliated individuals and related matters.
Those lies materially impaired the investigation of Russian election interference.
Some individuals invoked their Fifth Amendment right against compelled self-incrimination and the Special Counsel's Office determined they were not appropriate candidates for grants of immunity.
Even when individuals testified or agreed to be interviewed they sometimes provided information that was false or incomplete.
And the Special Counsel's Office faced practical limits on its ability to access relevant evidence as numerous subjects and witnesses lived abroad and documents were held outside the US.
Also, some of the individuals the Special Counsel's Office interviewed or whose conduct was investigated, including some associated with the Trump Campaign, deleted relevant communications or communicated during the relevant period using applications that feature encryption or that do not provide for long-term retention of data or communications records.
According, given these gaps in evidence, the Special Counsel's Office cannot rule out the possibility that the unavailable information would shed additional light on (or cast in a new light) the events described in the report.
correcition:
Accordingly, given these gaps in evidence, the Special Counsel's Office cannot rule out the possibility that the unavailable information would shed additional light on (or cast in a new light) the events described in the report.
Good God.
So, it's a possibility that if Mueller had 2 more years and 35 more million dollars, then there MIGHT be some further information out there.. :^/
I find that dubious at best...
Basically, yer taking the Stalin-ist approach...
"Show me the man and, given enough time, I can show you the crime.."
-Josef Stalin
Mueller had 2 years and 35 million dollars.. If he couldn't find any evidence with that kind of time and that kind of funding, plus a team of Democrats that were ***VERY*** motivated to find something.... ANYTHING..
If he had all that and said there wasn't sufficient evidence to prove collusion, then it's a safe bet that there was no such evidence..
In this case, absence of evidence IS evidence of absence..
We can play "what if" all day long..
But Mueller issued his report and it's the final word..
NO COLLUSION...
Ya'all are simply going to have to accept that..
Seeking or receiving "dirt" on ones political opponent, from ANY SOURCE WHATSOEVER, simply never was, never will be, nor ever could be, a prosecutable "against the law" crime, REGARDLESS of how many 'feel-good', unenforceable laws there may be against it! The very concept is inconceivable, and regardless of how much verbiage Democratics invent to spin it otherwise, that's NEVER gonna change!
So, it's a possibility that if Mueller had 2 more years and 35 more million dollars, then there MIGHT be some further information out there.. :^/
No, that's not all what I think.
I think the individuals associated with the Trump Campaign would still lie, and otherwise conceal relevant information no matter how long or how well funded the investigation was.
I'll tell you what's never going to change, CRS, and that's your simplistic, at best, view of the world.
It's really out of place at this blog.
I think the individuals associated with the Trump Campaign would still lie, and otherwise conceal relevant information no matter how long or how well funded the investigation was.
Then why didn't Mueller prosecute or indict any of those people for lying about Russia collusion???
Because, what most likely happened is that someone forgot to dot an 'i' or cross a 't' and the Mueller Dem Get Trump team assigned nefarious motives to such...
The long and short of it is two fold..
1. No American knowingly colluded with, conspired with or coordinated with Russians to affect the US 2016 Presidential Election..
2. The results and outcome of the US 2016 Presidential Election was NOT affected in ANY way by Russian activities...
If those two facts can't be accepted then that's a shame...
I'll tell you what's never going to change, CRS, and that's your simplistic, at best, view of the world.
And yet, there is a mathematical constant that says the simplest answer is most likely the correct answer..
Occam's Razor
Then why didn't Mueller prosecute or indict any of those people for lying about Russia collusion???
Ah, he did.
Ah, he did.
Not possible...
Because to prosecute someone for lying about Russia collusion, Mueller would have to prove that Russia Collusion EXISTED..
But Mueller himself said there was not sufficient evidence to prove collusion.
Ergo, no one could lie about something that does not exist..
It would be like someone lying about god..
Since god doesn't exist, how can anyone lie about him/her in the legal prosecutable sense..???
You can't be charged with lying about a crime if the crime didn't happen..
I deserve better than that sort of nonsense, Michale.
You see, ya'all's problem is that ya'all are hung up on this notion that, just because Trump et al talked to Russians, it MUST be illegal...
Ya'all can't accept that Trump won the election fair and square...
So you make up this fantasy that Russia got Trump elected without a SINGLE SOLITARY fact that proves it..
Everyone who has commented, from the lowliest Democrat official, thru Hillary Clinton, thru Robert Mueller and all the way up to Odumbo hisself..
**ALL** of them have stated over and over again that any Russians machinations did NOT affect the outcome of the election..
In other words, even if there was absolutely NO Russian actions, Trump would STILL be POTUS..
The entirety of the Left is taking the notion of sore luser'ism to new depths of depravity...
It's simply not mentally healthy...
I deserve better than that sort of nonsense, Michale.
And I deserve better than to have the facts called nonsense..
How can you prosecute someone for lying about a "crime" that never happened??
Let me give you an example...
There is a robbery at a coffee shop.. John Doe claims that Joe Schmoo came in and robbed the place...
Police questioned Joe Schmoo who said he was at the race track betting on horses.. He lied. He was really with some married girl boffin' her brains out..
As it turns out, John Doe ALSO lied.. There was no robbery.. Doe had embezzled the money...
Now, how are you going to prosecute Joe Schmoo for lying about a crime that never actually happened..
Answer. You can't...
If there was no collusion, then you can't prosecute someone for lying about collusion...
It's really simple..
Occam's Razor strikes again... :D
And I deserve better than to have the facts called nonsense..How can you prosecute someone for lying about a "crime" that never happened??
Michale, you are much better than even the president when it comes to purposefully deflecting from the facts by mixing up the words to obscure what is real and highlight what is not real.
The Special Counsel's Office indicted members of the Trump Campaign and administration for lying to investigators about their contacts with Russians which amounted to obstructing the investigation.
The Mueller report says what I wrote above. Which is to say that the unavailable information due to lying and concealment may have obscured the crime of conspiracy.
I am officially through with you on this subject.
The Special Counsel's Office indicted members of the Trump Campaign and administration for lying to investigators about their contacts with Russians which amounted to obstructing the investigation.
The only one that comes to mind is General Flynn.. And THAT was the result of Mueller lackey's threatening Flynn's son...
Perhaps you can enlighten me as to the others..
The Mueller report says what I wrote above. Which is to say that the unavailable information due to lying and concealment may have obscured the crime of conspiracy.
And yet, Mueller STILL ended the probe and said there was not sufficient evidence...
Why did Mueller end the probe if he felt there was still truth out there???
Because he KNEW that there was no Russia Collusion..
But let's say you are right and Mueller DOES say there was Russia Collusion..
Why won't Pelosi start impeachment if it's so blatantly obvious that there was Russia Collusion on the part of President Trump et al???
I am officially through with you on this subject.
Again!?? :D
Do you know how we KNOW that there was no Russia Collusion??
Because Pelosi is STILL backing away from impeachment.. :D
Page 10 of the Mueller Report..
The Office investigated several other events that have been publicly repot1ed to involve
potential Russia-related contacts. For example, the investigation established that interactions
between Russian Ambassador Kislyak and Trump Campaign officials both at the candidate's April
2016 foreign policy speech in Washington, D.C., and during the week of the Republican National
Convention were brief, public, and non-substantive.
"BRIEF"... "PUBLIC"... "NON-SUBSTANTIVE"
That describes the majority of "facts" ya'all have of Russia Collusion..
And the investigation did not establish that
one Campaign official's efforts to dilute a portion of the Republican Party platform on providing
assistance to Ukraine were undertaken at the behest of candidate Trump or Russia. The
investigation also did not establish that a meeting between Kislyak and Sessions in September
2016 at Sessions's Senate office included any more than a passing mention of the presidential
campaign.
Seems like ya'all omit the parts that doesn't support ya'all's agenda.. :D
PAGE 5
The social media campaign and the GRU hacking operations coincided with a series of
contacts between Trump Campaign officials and individuals with ties to the Russian government.
The Office investigated whether those contacts reflected or resulted in the Campaign conspiring
or coordinating with Russia in its election-interference activities. Although the investigation
established that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and
worked to secure that outcome, and that the Campaign expected it would benefit electorally from
information stolen and released through Russian efforts, the investigation did not establish that
members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its
election interference activities.
That is clear and unambiguous..
NO COLLUSION
I'll post the verbatim txt of the report more tomorrow.. It's poker night. :D
But, as I said, the **ONE** that proves Mueller said "NO COLLUSION" is that Dumbocrats aren't falling all over themselves to impeach President Trump..
Until such time as that happens, Dumbocrats enthusiastically pursuing impeachment with the vast majority of Americans behind them???
NO COLLUSION...
Michale,
It wouldn't surprise me a bit to learn that Mueller is secretly on President Trump's pay roll..
I love it when you slip up and make comments acknowledging Trump’s corruption... it shows that you aren’t blind or stupid — just dishonest.
Michale,
Police questioned Joe Schmoo who said he was at the race track betting on horses.. He lied. He was really with some married girl boffin' her brains out..
As it turns out, John Doe ALSO lied.. There was no robbery.. Doe had embezzled the money...
Now, how are you going to prosecute Joe Schmoo for lying about a crime that never actually happened..
Answer. You can't...
Wow! You really do not know ANYTHING about law enforcement!
Guess what...embezzlement is also a crime, especially when the culprit files a false crime report in an attempt to cover up the actual crime.
Imagine if detectives spent weeks going over security camera footage from the track trying to verify Joe’s story, but cannot find him in a single frame. Their subpoena for his phone records allow them to determine his phone was actually pinging off the cell tower near the alleged robbery site at the time John said the robbery had occurred. Joe didn’t realize the girl he was banging lived in an apartment above the store. Karma is a biatch! By the time Joe decides to tell the truth to avoid going to prison for a robbery he didn’t commit, John has fled the country with millions of dollars that he embezzled from innocent orphans. Still think Joe did nothing punishable under the law?
At the minimum, he can be charged for making false statements to an officer. It’s more likely that he will face obstruction of justice charges for this.
Seeking or receiving "dirt" on ones political opponent, from ANY SOURCE WHATSOEVER, simply never was, never will be, nor ever could be, a prosecutable "against the law" crime, REGARDLESS of how many 'feel-good', unenforceable laws there may be against it!
You've repeated this many times CRS, and in general it is true that campaigns seek political dirt on their opponents. However there are legal and illegal means to conduct those investigations.
How many of the following are legal:
a/ Breaking into the Watergate building?
b/ Hacking an email server?
c/ Kidnapping somebody's kid and not freeing them until a parent reveals political dirt?
d/ Receiving stolen goods?
Are you sure all of these "never was, never will be, nor ever could be" illegal?
[58]
Michale! You're finally reading the report!!!
That is great news!
Now, don't skip any pages or you'll get a warped opinion of it and then put that warped opinion on display here for all to see.
But, again, I think its great that you're actually reading the report!
Perhaps you can enlighten me as to the others..
I think I'd rather let you read it in the report, now that you're reading the report ...
And yet, Mueller STILL ended the probe and said there was not sufficient evidence...
BECAUSE EVERYONE LIED!!!
I mean, because everyone lied about it.
I am officially through with you on this subject.
Again!?? :D
Ahem … yes.
But, as I said, the **ONE** that proves Mueller said "NO COLLUSION" is that Dumbocrats aren't falling all over themselves to impeach President Trump..
Oh, come on, Michale. You know there is another reason for that. More than one, in fact.
I wonder if the next piece will have the title, Trump Speaks.
Hehehehehehehe ...
It could become a series, even. Next up? Barr Speaks.
This has all become so unbelievable, for lack of any word that really fits what is happening.
When a police officer or member of the military are accused of committing a criminal act, the criminal investigation ALWAYS precedes the administrative investigation... for a very good reason — if a jury determines that an officer is going to prison for their crimes, there is no need to hold an administrative hearing to determine if an officer should be allowed to stay in their job if they are going to prison.
Why aren’t we doing this when there is a chance that our president has committed a felony? We have the office of the Vice President for a reason — to step in and act as the President when the President is unable to perform the duties bestowed upon them. This prevents corrupt individuals from staying in power once their corruption is exposed.
A criminal trial is based on the rule of law. Impeachment is a political action. Congress is not given directions and instructed on the criteria they need to satisfy for how they should vote. The Senate votes on whether the president should be removed from office. It’s much harder to dismiss a person’s actions as “not so bad” if those actions have resulted in a jury finding them guilty of a felony!
Congress cannot agree on how to define what a “high crime” is to determine whether to even begin the impeachment process. Allowing the judicial branch to do its job would make it easier for politicians to make that determination...by doing it for them!
neilm [61]
Re: How many are llegal?
a) Obviously building break-ins are always illegal.
b) Hacking email servers, obviously illegal, but
unenforceable when done by foreigners.
c) Kidnapping somebody's kid, etc. I have to presume
illegal, but off topic, too far-
fetched to justify comment.
d) Receiving stolen goods, clearly illegal, but subject
to the very imprecise definition of "goods". Would
somebody's reputation quaklify as "goods"?
I seemingly missed the point of your post. I never said, nor even implied, than those things "never could be illegal", only getting politicla "dirt" on your political opponent. Declaring that to be illegal would be tantamount to declaring campaigning to be illegal. (But hey, maybe it should be!, I wouldn't miss it!))
only getting politicla "dirt" on your political opponent. Declaring that to be illegal would be tantamount to declaring campaigning to be illegal.
You see, CRS, you are the only one who keeps repeating that narrowly defined assertion which of course is commonplace in politics.
It just doesn't have anything to do with the subject at hand here.
Neil,
Receiving stolen goods?
Pentagon Papers...
'nuff said...
Basically, the ONLY criteria for issues such as this is Party loyalty..
If a theft occurs of documents that HELP the Dumbocrat agenda, as in the Pentagon Papers, it's perfectly acceptable..
If a theft occurs of documents that HURT the Dumbocrat agenda, as in the DNC "hack", it's a heinous crime and ANYONE who benefits from it should be strung up and shot..
It's ALL about Party or ideological loyalty...
Nothing else matters..
Does the fact that the theft described in the Mueller report was undertaken by a hostile foreign adversary have anything to do with it, Michale?
Does the fact that the theft described in the Mueller report was undertaken by a hostile foreign adversary have anything to do with it, Michale?
Not in the eyes of the law..
Regardless, Neil is not talking about that..
He is talking about opposition research obtained thru illegal means...
It doesn't matter WHO obtained the documents. According to Neil it only matters HOW the documents were obtained..
I mean, if it matters to you about the WHO, what's your defense of Hillary getting dirt on Trump from Ukrainians??
Don't tell me.. Let me guess... It didn't happen. :D
Michale
Re: "Strung up AND shot"
That seems a mite redundant - even our fellow Democratics aren't usually quite that rabid. In all fairness, Liz and Kick and Paula would probably settle for EITHER "strung-up", OR "shot"!
Liz M
You appear to be stuck in the 'cold war' mentality of the '50's. Your definition of 'hostile' appears to be totally arbitrary. Sounds like a case of archaic "Comiphobia" to me.
Maybe that should be "Commiephobia", who knows.
That seems a mite redundant - even our fellow Democratics aren't usually quite that rabid. In all fairness, Liz and Kick and Paula would probably settle for EITHER "strung-up", OR "shot"!
I disagree..
I think anyone here, sans you and I and maybe DH, would want to go with the Vigo method...
"He didn't die of old age, either. He was poisoned, stabbed, shot, hung, stretched, disembowled, drawn and quartered."
-Ray Stantz, GHOSTBUSTERS 2
That is what is so shocking about all this.. The blatant and unremitting HATRED emenating from Weigantians..
All because Donald Trump had the TEMERITY, the unmitigated GALL to beat Hillary in a free, fair and legal election..
It's even DOUBLY shocking because up until recently, Donald Trump was a DEMOCRAT and Democrats far and wide LOVED him...
But Party slavery overrides all...
CRS and Michale,
The two of you do realize that Russia engaged in a vast and systematic attack on your presidential election process, right?
Or, are the both of you still in denial on that score?
I mean, if it matters to you about the WHO, what's your defense of Hillary getting dirt on Trump from Ukrainians??
Cite??
The two of you do realize that Russia engaged in a vast and systematic attack on your presidential election process, right?
You DO realize that Russia does that on EVERY Presidential Election, going back to when they were the USSR and beyond...
It's only a problem now because Donald Trump beat Hillary Clinton..
It WAS "her turn" after all.. :^/
I mean, if it matters to you about the WHO, what's your defense of Hillary getting dirt on Trump from Ukrainians??
Cite??
Ukrainian Embassy confirms DNC contractor solicited Trump dirt in 2016
thehill.com/opinion/white-house/441892-ukrainian-embassy-confirms-dnc-contractor-solicited-trump-dirt-in-2016
John Solomon: As Russia Collusion Fades, Ukrainian Plot To Help Clinton Emerges
realclearpolitics.com/video/2019/03/21/john_solomon_as_russia_collusion_fades_ukrainian_plot_to_help_clinton_emerges.html
You DO realize that Russia does that on EVERY Presidential Election, going back to when they were the USSR and beyond...It's only a problem now because Donald Trump beat Hillary Clinton..
This is the first time Russia found such a useful fool as Donald Trump. That press conference in Helsinki surprised even Putin and so pleasantly so.
This is the first time Russia found such a useful fool as Donald Trump.
That's an opinion unsupported by facts..
The fact is, Russian/Soviet meddling in US elections is the norm, not the exception...
Why is it such a problem now??
Because Hillary lost...
That press conference in Helsinki surprised even Putin and so pleasantly so.
This requires mind-reading and, as such, it's not worthy of a person of your obvious intellect....
On the other hand, mind-reading was NOT required to divine what Obama said when he asked the Russians to give him space to win the election and that, in return, Obama could be "flexible" for Putin....
Liz M [80]
I presume you realize that nobody in the entire world matches the U.S. when it comes to interfering in foreign elections, right?
I am also constrained to point out it's well documented that President Trump has been a LOT harder on Russia than Obama ever was...
Obama knew MONTHS before the election that Russia was meddling in our elections..
But he did NOTHING...
SOLELY for partisan reasons...
I presume you realize that nobody in the entire world matches the U.S. when it comes to interfering in foreign elections, right?
That was going to be my next point..
Hell, Obama and his miniions even campaigned against Netanyahu in the Israeli election...
Of course, Obama failed..
Obama knew MONTHS before the election that Russia was meddling in our elections..
But he did NOTHING...
SOLELY for partisan reasons...
And we know this to be true because Obama himself SAID so..
FALSE.
This is where Chris needs to step in.
I am also constrained to point out it's well documented that President Trump has been a LOT harder on Russia than Obama ever was...
Don't make me laugh.
Helsinki.
FALSE.
This is where Chris needs to step in.
WHich part do you deny???
Don't make me laugh.
Helsinki.
So, that ONE instance defines EVERYTHING Trump has done vis a vis Russia??
FALSE
President Trump is tougher on Russia in 18 months than Obama in eight years
Even though the left-wing media will never give him credit, President Trump has been far tougher on Russia than his predecessor, Barack Obama.
For starters, it was President Obama who, according to Reuters, was “caught on camera” saying to a Russian leader that he’ll have more flexibility after the election — not President Trump.
The fact is, President Trump has been quite tough on Russia.
So much so, the sanctions resemble a Russian nesting doll: one sanction of top of another, on top of another.
Just last April, the Trump administration imposed new sanctions on Russia — including strict sanctions on seven of Russia’s richest individuals and 17 top government officials for their interference in our elections.
The sanctions directly penalized President Vladimir Putin’s inner circle by prohibiting them from traveling to the United States ever again. He did this by opening a bank account in the West, preventing them from doing business with the West and prohibiting anyone else to do business on their behalf.
The sanctions were significant — among the toughest sanctions ever placed on individuals in a foreign country, with the exception of perhaps Iran and North Korea. Yet like many of Trump’s successes, it received minimal mainstream media coverage.
During his first month in office in January 2017, President Trump upheld strict sanctions to punish Russia for its unlawful 2014 annexation of Crimea. With those sanctions, the Trump administration punished more than three dozen individuals and organizations that were behind the invasion of Ukraine.
Even Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin had a hand in the actions, stating that there would be no easing of the sanctions until Russia meets its obligations under the 2015 Minsk agreement — the ceasefire agreement between Russia and Ukraine.
In August 2017, Trump signed a bill slapping even more sanctions on Russia — this time specifically aimed at the country’s energy and defense industries. Congress made the legislation Trump-proof, meaning that no executive order could ever undo such sanctions; yet Trump signed it anyway.
In fact it was Trump — not Obama — who ordered the closure of Russian diplomatic properties in San Francisco, Washington, D.C., and New York City that appeared to be a threat to American security.
It was also President Trump who shuttered the Russian consulate in Seattle.
https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/397212-president-trump-is-tougher-on-russia-in-18-months-than-obama-in-eight
You have a blindspot with regards to President Trump and his actions. It prevents you from even SEEING the facts, let alone acknowledging them...
Why didn’t Obama do more to counter Russia’s interference in our election?
The American people only learned of this significant delay a year later, when the Washington Post revealed that a “courier from the CIA” had delivered an “intelligence bombshell” to the White House in August 2016, containing “a report drawn from sourcing deep inside the Russian government that detailed Russian President Vladimir Putin’s direct involvement in a cyber campaign to disrupt and discredit the U.S. presidential race.”
Shockingly, according to other reports, President Obama was aware in more general terms of Russia’s planned effort to undermine American democracy for years.
“The Obama administration received multiple warnings from national security officials between 2014 and 2016 that the Kremlin was ramping up its intelligence operations and building disinformation networks it could use to disrupt the U.S. political system,” Politico reported in 2017.
The first real retaliation against Moscow, however, did not come until right after Donald Trump won the presidency, at which point the White House announced mild sanctions against several Russians.
When Obama told Russian President Dmitry Medvedev that he would have “more flexibility” with Moscow after the 2012 election, few expected the U.S. president would be this flexible with one of America’s greatest geopolitical foes.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/2019/03/31/why_didnt_obama_do_more_to_counter_russian_interference_470593.html
Let's also not forget that it was Obama, the Democrats and ya'all incidentally, who ridiculed Romney when Romney suggested that Russia is our number one political foe...
"The 80s are calling. They want their foreign policy back.."
-Barack Obama
It was Obama and the Democrats who coddled and colluded with Russia...
Right up until the point that Russia became a convenient scapegoat to cover Hillary's brutal and humiliating loss...
This bears repeating..
“The Obama administration received multiple warnings from national security officials between 2014 and 2016 that the Kremlin was ramping up its intelligence operations and building disinformation networks it could use to disrupt the U.S. political system,” Politico reported in 2017.
The first real retaliation against Moscow, however, did not come until right after Donald Trump won the presidency, at which point the White House announced mild sanctions against several Russians.
Obama had a general idea of what the Russians in 2014...
But did not take a SINGLE step to address it until AFTER Hillary lost the election..
When asked why it took so long to respond, Obama replied that he didn't want to give the impression that he was meddling in the election. Obama figured (as everyone else did) that Hillary would win and Obama was concerned that his taking action against the Russians during the election would give Trump ammunition to not accept the results of the election..
Obama didn't want to tarnish Hillary's win..
THAT is why Obama didn't take action sooner...
Pure partisan politics...
Liz M [80]
Yeah, I definitely DO realize that that "Vast and systematic attack on (our) presidential election process" revealed to all Americans that Hillary had stacked the Dem primaries against Bernie Sanders, right?
Words can scarcely convey the magnitude of my dismay upon discovering that Democratics cheat each other, as well as Republicans!! Totally shocking!!
how unfortunate that article II section 4 of the constitution doesn't say "stupid president tricks and misdemeanors" - then it'd be a slam dunk!
how unfortunate that article II section 4 of the constitution doesn't say "stupid president tricks and misdemeanors" - then it'd be a slam dunk!
As it would have been for Obama.. :D