Ice Queen Posted March 24, 2019 Share Posted March 24, 2019 31 minutes ago, A Horse Named Stranger said: You could'Ve also mentioned, that the "Ukrainian" Manafort worked for was a Russian puppet, which was driven out during the so called Orange Revolution (the irony), which more or less started the whole Crime war/occupation. Yanukovich is currently residing in his Russian exile, and in the Ukraine he is wanted for high treason (not sure if he has faced trial in absentia). I know, it was not your claim. Yep, they sentenced him to 13 years in January. And that Manafort got about $60 million for his trouble. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mexal Posted March 24, 2019 Share Posted March 24, 2019 On 3/22/2019 at 9:11 PM, Fragile Bird said: What makes you think that? If Trump is re-elected, limitation periods might bar action. I expect that if offences are uncovered, there will be indictments, and then court battles. SDNY isn't going to indict the President without Barr agreeing to it and he won't agree to it. Only way Trump gets indicted is after he leaves office. On 3/22/2019 at 9:25 PM, Mudguard said: I'm also worried that Mueller's report is going to be a big disappointment by not finding strong evidence of collusion/conspiracy with Russia to commit an unlawful act. The lack of further indictments, when so far no one has been charged with collusion with Russia, suggests that Mueller just didn't find the evidence to support such a charge beyond a reasonable doubt. It's seems extremely unlikely that Mueller could conclude Trump colluded with Russia but not any of his other staff members. One other possibility is the evidence is classified from intelligence. If that's the case, I don't believe they are able to use it in court to prove conspiracy for a multitude of reasons. Mueller's report would describe this if it's the case though I have no idea if it'd actually be made public. I think one thing that seems to get overlooked is Rosenstein's note was to "investigate links the Trump campaign had to Russia". It didn't specify only "criminal" acts. I would have to assume the Mueller report will be pretty comprehensive on those links since there are a lot of them, criminal or otherwise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Chatywin et al. Posted March 24, 2019 Share Posted March 24, 2019 On 3/22/2019 at 7:41 PM, Jace, Basilissa said: I ask you now to judge me not by the size of my hands, but by the rude gestures they make. The roaring laughter was real. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Chatywin et al. Posted March 24, 2019 Share Posted March 24, 2019 1 hour ago, DanteGabriel said: Bold Barry here would surely be as judgment-free and neutral to the charges if everyone within Obama's radius had been convicted of these same crimes, yes? Do you remember that time Obama saluted with a coffee cup in hand? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DMC Posted March 24, 2019 Share Posted March 24, 2019 Study: Hate crimes rose by 226 percent in counties Trump campaigned Quote "To test this, we aggregated hate-crime incident data and Trump rally data to the county level and then used statistical tools to estimate a rally’s impact," the three wrote. "We included controls for factors such as the county’s crime rates, its number of active hate groups, its minority populations, its percentage with college educations, its location in the country and the month when the rallies occurred," they continued. The study's authors said their findings revealed that counties that hosted one of Trump’s 275 campaign rallies in 2016 saw a 226 percent increase in reported hate crimes compared to comparable counties that didn’t host a rally. [...] But the three said that suggestions this effect can "be explained through a plethora of faux hate crimes are at best unrealistic." "In fact, this charge is frequently used as a political tool to dismiss concerns about hate crimes," they said. "Research shows it is far more likely that hate crime statistics are considerably lower because of underreporting." Thought the bolded was important to emphasize based on recent conversations here. Trump probably won't be able to tip circuit courts as much as he wants Quote “It does seem that many circuit judges appointed by Democratic presidents will not assume senior status or retire until after the 2020 elections,” said Carl Tobias, a University of Richmond law professor and expert on judicial nominations. “If Trump wins re-election, the majorities on more circuits would be in play.” Besides the 3rd Circuit, the only other circuit court that Trump could easily flip is the 11th Circuit, which has six Democratic-appointed judges and six GOP-appointed judges. But there aren’t any vacancies on that court right now. The balance of Republican-vs.-Democratic appointed judges on all the other circuit courts isn’t changing anytime soon: The 5th, 6th, 7th and 8th Circuits have GOP majorities, and the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 9th, 10th, D.C. and Federal Circuits have Democratic majorities. 22 hours ago, Bold Barry Whitebeard said: Manafort: We agree then, connections to Ukraine, not Russia. Also from years ago, before his association with the Trump campaign. What are we agreeing on exactly. That you're being shockingly (and now willingly) naive to suggest that relationship - let alone many of the other charges Manafort was convicted of - did not involve Russian elements? I suppose, yeah. 22 hours ago, Bold Barry Whitebeard said: Cohen, again, nothing in the indictment or court filings suggests there was anything illegal about the proposed business dealings with Russia. Oh, so now it's not that the charges Cohen pled guilty don't entail "no Russian interaction" like you said, it's that such interaction wasn't illegal in and of itself. I wonder how the goalposts will change when Mueller's findings actually begin being publicized. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mexal Posted March 24, 2019 Share Posted March 24, 2019 Letter from Barr to Congress expected in 30-45 minutes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jace, Extat Posted March 24, 2019 Share Posted March 24, 2019 30 minutes ago, Mexal said: Letter from Barr to Congress expected in 30-45 minutes. In five years CNN is going to have a countdown clock to the declaration of the dissolution of the civilian legislature. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mexal Posted March 24, 2019 Share Posted March 24, 2019 Pretty complete exoneration for Trump. No conspiracy because definition used was a “tacit agreement with the Russian government on election interference” and no obstruction because they couldn’t prove the conspiracy (decided by Barr and Rosenstein, not Mueller). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ice Queen Posted March 24, 2019 Share Posted March 24, 2019 6 minutes ago, Triskele said: So it sounds like what's being released says that Muller found no collusion with Russia to influence election not enough evidence on obstruction. Sounds like a best case scenario for Trump so far. Wow. We all heard what he said to Lester Holt. Seriously, what more do we need? Let's see the whole thing. Executive summaries never match what's in the actual report. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mexal Posted March 24, 2019 Share Posted March 24, 2019 1 minute ago, Ice Queen said: We all heard what he said to Lester Holt. Seriously, what more do we need? Let's see the whole thing. Executive summaries never match what's in the actual report. It's more about the criminal nature of proving obstruction of justice beyond a reasonable doubt and if they can't prove the underlying crime (conspiracy) then they can't prove that Trump actually obstructed justice to stop that crime from being exposed. It's legal rather than actual which is why Mueller didn't make a determination one way or another. Full report in that area might still not look great for Trump but the top line is very good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ice Queen Posted March 24, 2019 Share Posted March 24, 2019 Just now, Mexal said: It's more about the criminal nature of proving obstruction of justice beyond a reasonable doubt and if they can't prove the underlying crime (conspiracy) then they can't prove that Trump actually obstructed justice to stop that crime from being exposed. They probably could. Mueller left it up to Barr who, being the good little Republican foot soldier he is, won't prosecute. Republicans, party over country every time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mexal Posted March 24, 2019 Share Posted March 24, 2019 3 minutes ago, Ice Queen said: They probably could. Mueller left it up to Barr who, being the good little Republican foot soldier he is, won't prosecute. Republicans, party over country every time. Actually, Mueller left it up to Congress. Barr chose to weigh in when he didn’t have to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mexal Posted March 24, 2019 Share Posted March 24, 2019 One reason the report does need to come out is Trump Tower Moscow. Whether there was a tacit agreement or not, what influence did trying to complete a $300 million deal have on his decision making? That’s still an open question and one not solved by this 4 page read out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DMC Posted March 24, 2019 Share Posted March 24, 2019 14 minutes ago, Mexal said: Pretty complete exoneration for Trump. Barr's letter includes a quote from the Special Counsel that specifically states "while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him" regarding obstruction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mexal Posted March 24, 2019 Share Posted March 24, 2019 7 minutes ago, DMC said: Barr's letter includes a quote from the Special Counsel that specifically states "while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him" regarding obstruction. Yea and then goes on to say that Barr and Rosenstein made a determination that they can’t prove obstruction beyond a reasonable doubt. Similar with Clinton where they couldn’t prove she was knowingly negligent with her classified emails. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DMC Posted March 24, 2019 Share Posted March 24, 2019 5 minutes ago, Mexal said: Yea and then goes on to say that Barr and Rosenstein made a determination that they can’t prove obstruction beyond a reasonable doubt. Similar with Clinton where they couldn’t prove she was knowingly negligent with her classified emails. I thought the interesting thing about the Obstruction section was Barr and Rosenstein asserting they are not charging Trump with obstruction not because of constitutional consideration/DOJ policy, but because they cannot establish an underlying crime. That certainly wasn't the GOP's standard when they impeached the Clinton, so I'm not sure how much this really "exonerates" Trump, more than the obvious that Mueller wasn't going to try to charge the sitting president and Barr definitely wasn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mexal Posted March 24, 2019 Share Posted March 24, 2019 4 minutes ago, DMC said: I thought the interesting thing about the Obstruction section was Barr and Rosenstein asserting they are not charging Trump with obstruction not because of constitutional consideration/DOJ policy, but because they cannot establish an underlying crime. That certainly wasn't the GOP's standard when they impeached the Clinton, so I'm not sure how much this really "exonerates" Trump, more than the obvious that Mueller wasn't going to try to charge the sitting president and Barr definitely wasn't. Guess we will see. Pretty much the issue with making sweeping characterizations (what I did) based on 4 page distillation after a 36 hour review. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ice Queen Posted March 24, 2019 Share Posted March 24, 2019 22 minutes ago, Mexal said: Actually, Mueller left it up to Congress. Barr chose to weigh in when he didn’t have to. Oh, I agree He should have recused himself. Mueller wants Congress to do its job, like that's ever going to happen. If they would have done that, Mueller wouldn't have been needed in the first place. So, that leaves the state attorneys general to save us. But I think the time is rapidly approaching when it gets bloody. Trump will take this as an exoneration, and it's full court authoritarian press from here. Law and order mean nothing, Trump is above the law thanks to Iran Contra Barr, and our democracy no longer functions. Sorry to be so nihilistic, but there you go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mexal Posted March 24, 2019 Share Posted March 24, 2019 Only ones saving the USA from Trump are the voters in 2020. That is all. Trump has already been named as a co-conspirator in a campaign finance felony and no one has batted an eye. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rippounet Posted March 24, 2019 Share Posted March 24, 2019 Pelosi was oh-so-right to say what she said then. Trump will be the latest in a long line of Republican presidents who got away with far more than they should have: Nixon, Reagan, H.W., W. ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.