Jump to content

Gap03

Certifiably Surly
  • Posts

    1,447
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Gap03

  1. The problem is that the line is buried in a 400-page report. Mueller needs to say this as part of a concise sound bite that can be blasted on the news channels / twitter repeatedly until it the Fox News crowd can no longer ignore it. I had posted a few pages back on what I thought would be ideal testimony to make the point. Dems just need to get Mueller to testify and figure out how to get him to state clearly that (1) Trump obviously obstructed, but just can't be charged because he's a sitting president, and (2) obstruction might have made the difference between conspiracy "beyond a reasonable doubt" and a shitload of evidence that doesn't quite support a conviction.
  2. Cleaning? Pffft - he probably just wishes he had been wearing a blue dress during the deed ...
  3. I would love to see someone ask Mueller the following line of questioning when he testifies: In drawing your conclusion regarding conspiracy between the Trump campaign and other associates with the Russian government, you assessed whether the available evidence supported a finding of conspiracy beyond a reasonable doubt. Is that correct? In making that assessment, could you provide insight as to how close to meeting that threshold the evidence came? 70%? 80% 90%? Do you believe that, given the multiple events that suggest obstruction of justice by Trump, it is likely that those efforts may have limited the availability of evidence to the OSC? Is it possible (or likely) that such additional evidence could have led the OSC to find conspiracy beyond a reasonable doubt? If Trump were not the sitting president, do you think the evidence presented in the Mueller report would support a finding of obstruction of justice? I would just love to have a crisp, clean clip coming directly from Mueller making the points that (1) there was clear evidence suggesting conspiracy, just not enough to meet the criminal standard, (2) the shortfall in evidence may have been the result of Trump's obstruction, and (3) Trump would have been guilty of obstruction in the absence of the DOJ guidance regarding indicting a sitting president. Maybe, just maybe, that would be enough to get the Chicken Sandwiches of the world to STFU with the "No Collusion! No Obstruction!" chants.
  4. Durbin bringing the heat and looking to clearly paint Barr into a corner regarding his earlier lies to Congress. Just need to get Mueller to testify as soon as possible to finish this POS off.
  5. The D's should be hammering them on all the R bullshit talking points - "There was no evidence of collusion ..." "There can be no obstruction without proof of a crime ..." Etc. Going down the rabbit hole like Feinstein did is an absolute waste of time, and it allows Barr to be able to run out the clock.
  6. Yes, I read it, but I stand by what I said above. The Report says: I read that as saying the FBI had made its own assessment, likely based on foreign intel and counterintel not disclosed in the Report. The Report then includes evidence that the OSC found in its own investigation that supports that conclusion. I don't believe that the listed evidence is the only evidence of Kilimnik's ties to Russia.
  7. The Report describes Kilimnik as "a longtime Manafort employee who previously ran Manafort's office in Kiev and who the FBI assesses to have ties to Russian intelligence." It also notes earlier that: I think it's pretty clear that the foreign intel / counterintelligence data supports the stated conclusion about Kilimnik's ties to Russian intelligence, but that Mueller was not inclined to burn assets to connect the dots in the Report.
  8. As funny as this would be if true, people aren't reading the whole footnote. The remainder of that note is: Still not sure what to believe, but there was obviously some chatter that Steele had picked up on.
  9. It's based on case law. Here's the link to the cites provided on p. 187 of the Mueller Report: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2145572/bluman-v-federal-election-comn/ https://www.justice.gov/criminal/file/1029066/download And who wrote the Bluman opinion you might ask? Mr. "I Like Beer" himself ...
  10. I think the campaign finance statute provides that to prove a felony they have to prove that the person acted "knowingly and willfully." In this case, the "knowingly" element does, in fact, provide a defense for ignorance of the law. That's probably why we don't see just a whole lot of felony cases in this area - it's just a terribly tough standard to meet, especially when dealing with dumbshits like the Trumps.
  11. Thank goodness there's no obstruction if you can't prove the underlying crime ...
  12. Seeing someone type this series of words makes me want to go Hound on them ...
  13. The French guy just got his time conversion wrong - had he gotten on Tucker, they would have gone full 4chan on the cause of that fire.
  14. What's astonishing is that, according to Wikipedia, this assclown actually got an BS and MS in mechanical engineering from MIT: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Massie If accurate, just goes to show once again that book smarts does not equal common sense ...
  15. That is an astute prognostication. The only question is whether he shoots for the most ubiquitous bills or his vanity will require him to put himself on new $1,000 or higher denomination bills. Oh, who am I kidding - he'll just put himself on all of them.
  16. I have a dream that one day one of these episodes will end like this ...
  17. Dude, paying all of your taxes is for chumps. Do you really want a chump on the Fed?
  18. The CrowdPAC for Collins' opponont is still open and approaching $4m. They should definitely use this to renew enthusiasm against her. I may make a contribution in light of her need to constantly posture and not do a damn thing. https://www.crowdpac.com/campaigns/387413/fund-susan-collins-future-opponent
  19. Interesting theory. I've been wrestling with Rosenstein's role in the preparation of the Barr summary. I had come around to the conclusion over the last two years that Rosenstein was committed to protecting the Mueller investigation, but had a hard time squaring that with his participation in the preparation of (or at least implied concurrence with) what seems pretty clearly to be a summary with a political agenda. Any support for the claim that Rosenstein had a role in shutting down Mueller, or is it just intuition?
  20. I was pretty sure that this was an Onion piece ...
  21. Fair enough. My fear is that some folks beyond the fringe will start believing it because, "By gosh, they were going on and on about the Mueller investigation, and then Mueller completely exonerated him." The longer the Barr letter hangs out there without the full Mueller report being made available, the more folks may just tune out legitimate news media altogether.
  22. And you know we're going to be barraged by Trump and his cronies with "the Fake News is the enemy of the American People" at least every week from here for the next decade because they, for some odd reason, thought that he was acting like a foreign agent. He's going to take advantage of the Barr summary to do his damnedest to destroy the 4th estate forever.
×
×
  • Create New...