Jump to content

Gap03

Certifiably Surly
  • Posts

    1,448
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Gap03

  1. 13 minutes ago, Red Five said:

    Btw there is a line in the report that basically says “it’s possible the obstruction was so successful that it prevented us from finding the evidence of collusion”.

    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. 

    • Like 1
  2. 3 minutes ago, Captainant said:

    That's just not supported by the facts, but keep on fucking that chicken.

    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.

    • Like 1
  3. 7 minutes ago, Goredho said:


    Mueller acting frustrated and shocked about this outcome seems incredibly naive on his part.  He's fucking Ned Stark in the throne room producing a piece of parchment that Cersei rips up in his face.
     

    QFT.

  4. 1 minute ago, Biff Tannen said:

    Yeah, the Rs keep using that word.  I do not think it means what they think it means.

    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.  

  5. 19 minutes ago, Fozzz said:

    Did you look at the evidence cited in the report as supporting the FBI's assessment re Kilimnik?  It's fucking laughable.

    Yes, I read it, but I stand by what I said above.  The Report says:

    Quote

    The FBI, however, assesses that Kilimnik has ties to Russian intelligence. Several pieces of the Office's evidence-including witness interviews and emails obtained through court-authorized search warrants support that assessment: ...

    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.  

  6. 11 minutes ago, Fozzz said:

    lol now it's trolling to point out obvious factual inaccuracies.  The evidence cited in the report of ties between Kilimnik and Russian intelligence includes such devastating items as Kilimnik obtaining a visa to travel to the US in 1997 with a Russian diplomatic passport and that he was once a translator in the Russian army.

    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:

    Quote

    For more than the past year, the FBI also embedded personnel at the Office who did not work on the Special Counsel's investigation, but whose purpose was to review the results of the investigation and to send-in writing-summaries of foreign intelligence and counterintelligence information to FBIHQ and FBI Field Offices. Those communications and other correspondence between the Office and the FBI contain information derived from the investigation, not all of which is contained in this Volume. This Volume is a summary. It contains, in the Office's judgment, that information necessary to account for the Special Counsel's prosecution and declination decisions and to describe the investigation's main factual results. 

    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.

  7. 13 minutes ago, BrickHorn said:

    What the report was unable to establish is that anyone on the Trump team was aware they were aiding a criminal act.  That is not tantamount, however, to Mueller establishing, proving, or concluding that Trump did not have the requisite intent.  The investigators just could not establish, beyond a reasonable doubt after what appears to have been a metric shit-ton of obstruction by Trump and his team, that Trump DID have that intent . 

    Just a modest refinement ...

    • Like 2
  8. 12 minutes ago, Rimbo said:

    HahahahahahahahHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!

     

    THE PEE TAPES ARE REAL! AHAHAHAHAHAAHAHHA

     

    D4cm1LeXkAEHbty.jpg:large

    As funny as this would be if true, people aren't reading the whole footnote.  The remainder of that note is:

    Quote

    the 2013 Miss Universe Pageant in Russia. Rtskhiladze 4/4/ 18 302, at 12. Cohen said he spoke to Trump
    about the issue after receiving the texts from Rtskhiladze. Cohen 9/12/18 302, at 13. Rtskhiladze said he
    was told the tapes were fake, but he did not communicate that to Cohen.
    Rtskhiladze 5/10/ 18 302, at 7.

    Still not sure what to believe, but there was obviously some chatter that Steele had picked up on.

  9. 4 minutes ago, Foosters said:

    do you have the statute handy? I only ask because knowingly doesn't necessarily mean knowing that you are breaking the law. For example, in obstruction of justice they need only show that you knowingly made a false statement. Not that you knew it was illegal to make a false statement.

    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. 19 minutes ago, Foosters said:

    Kinda. There are two types of crimes, at least in regards to intent: general intent and specific intent.

    Here is an example of a general intent crime (battery):

    Here is an example of a specific intent crime (burglary):

    In neither of those cases could you successfully defend yourself with the argument "I didnt know that it was illegal to do that."

    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.

    • Like 3
  11. 7 minutes ago, Skyline said:

    Good on Shep for stopping the speculation here: 

     

    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.

  12. 41 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

    And/or he'll try to put his fat face on our currency. 

    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.

  13. 6 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

    It’s looking like Rosenstein played a big role in both firing Comey and shutting down Mueller.  He might have valid and nonpartisan reasons for doing so but the optics of it are awful.  

    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?

  14. 2 minutes ago, Lagunamadre said:

    Well to be fair, that was going to happen regardless of what was in the report. And would have happened had there never been an investigation. 

    If CNBC factually reports that last month was the largest budget deficit in American history, they have become the enemy of the people in Trump's eyes. 

    Trump has already admitted as much, negative news equals fake news equals enemy of the people. 

    Screen_Shot_2018-05-11_at_10.53.36.2e16d

    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.  

×
×
  • Create New...