You are not logged in.
It depends upon what you mean by "hacking", as to whether there is evidence.
If you mean some sort of outside interference or influence, then, yes, we have lots of evidence. Enough to name many and indict some.
You can influence the outcome by changing minds before they go vote. That is the principle behind what things the Russians demonstrably did.
One way is to spread disinformation: negative for the candidate you do not like, and positive for the one you do like. Avenues to do this are (1) unpoliced social media, run by algorithms that enhance profit, not truth, and (2) legal propaganda outlets such as Sputnik and RT, not to mention Faux (Fox) News.
Another way is to exacerbate division by spreading exaggerated versions of party propaganda to the audiences most receptive to it. Again, the best ways to do this are by social media and legal propaganda outlets. Plus, agents masquerading as party activists holding rallies that emotionally pump up the division.
Those are the things identified by the intelligence agencies, and the subject of some of the indictments.
GW
Last edited by GW Johnson (2019-04-04 11:11:43)
GW Johnson
McGregor, Texas
"There is nothing as expensive as a dead crew, especially one dead from a bad management decision"
Offline
Like button can go here
A new wave has started on what was a finished investigation some of its been caused by Barr with a missrepresentation of the 400 pages of which those that were part of the report have said so. That said William Barr Seems to Be Covering Up Something Bad for Trump and a little birdy says he has more to say In bid to remain out of jail, Michael Cohen tells Congress he has more to add
So maybe he has a recording or scrap of paper with Trump..what else could there be which would be damming....
Offline
Like button can go here
SpaceNut,
I heard that same little birdy claim that there was Russian collusion. Your little birdy is a little liar. Then again, that's all that our Democrat-run media has been doing for the past two years- lying to the American people about absolutely everything. When the Democrats are through with their self-deception, feel free to let the rest of us know.
Offline
Like button can go here
The second wind for investigation and going forward will commence for the connections back to Trumps organization.
May are not only calling for the fool Barr to get out of the way and stop calling out falslehoods which are not what happened but to send the unredacted report as well not some opinion which is what he has already given as to its content as that was already called out as false.
Now from those charged with wrong doing also want a crack at it.
Former Trump adviser Roger Stone seeks dismissal of Mueller charges, access to report he wants a copy of the report as well to make use.
Manafort-linked lobbyist dodges prison for charges initiated by Mueller
Julian Assange has been pulled finally out of his fox hold and is in the hands of the British to stand trials frirst but we will need to get in line as others have claim to him as well before the US will get to his part of the Russian collusion with wikileaks of the DNC...of course he fears being beaten in prison and called Trump a Clown..
Offline
Like button can go here
Too many get their facts from various social media instead of actual journalism outlets. Too many others do not even understand the difference. Too many journalists themselves concentrate on what they want the story to be, rather than what it really is. All those things lead to misinformation, dangerous to a democracy of any type.
My first rule of thumb: unless you hear opinions divergent to your own, you are in an echo chamber listening to propaganda.
My second rule of thumb: the TV news and the newspapers are more reliable sources than any sort of social media or legal propaganda outlet, but you cannot listen to just one source, because they are still flawed.
That being said, Mueller's conclusions are not totally generalizable, because they are subject to the constraints of his investigation. With regard to "collusion" with Russia, Mueller's charter was to document what the Russians did, and determine if they had Americans helping them do it. The obvious suspect was Trump and his campaign, because of all the other connections and behaviors so public.
Mueller investigated the crime of "conspiracy", meaning cooperation with intent to defraud or do harm, and subject to a very convincing evidence criterion (enough to be credibly "beyond a reasonable doubt" for a criminal case). At that level of criminality, Mueller found no evidence. He apparently did not address lesser levels of cooperation, although the full report likely contains what he did find.
With regard to "obstruction of justice", Mueller again looked at evidence strong enough to present a case to a grand jury that would credibly be "beyond a reasonable doubt" strong. He SAID (as quoted in Barr's summary) the evidence did not meet that strength criterion, but he also VERY SPECIFICALLY SAID (as also quoted in Barr's summary) that he did NOT exonerate the president.
That's all based on a very high-strength level of evidence, as is usual in filing criminal court cases. What is considered in the more political world of elections and impeachments does not have to meet such strict criteria, and demonstrably does not. I would have to go back and study the case of Andrew Johnson's impeachment, but I witnessed the processes "live" for Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton.
Nixon was going to be impeached not for the crime of ordering a break-in and burglary, but for the "obstruction of justice" crime of trying to cover up what he had done. He headed off an impending impeachment by resigning. That impeachment seemed to have enough bipartisan support for a conviction.
Clinton got a blow job in the Oval Office from an intern, which is not even a crime, although it is rather disgusting behavior from a president. That is not why he was impeached, he was impeached for lying about it to cover it up, which is essentially "obstruction of justice", although there was no real crime to be covered up, just bad behavior. That case was far weaker than Nixon’s, and he was acquitted.
Thus the bar is much lower than what Mueller used, for both elections and for impeachments. Barr knows that, which is why his summary was only 4 pages, of a nearly 400-page document. He correctly headed off the "collusion" thing, and minimized the "obstruction" thing as unworthy of a criminal court case.
What he left out was there is plenty of stuff of the sort that led to Clinton's impeachment (and acquittal), and to Nixon's near-impeachment. The guy is a lawyer dealing in court cases. Why should anyone expect otherwise?
What happens next is a battle between the House and the AG over how much of the unredacted report they will get to see. They will very soon see the redacted version. And federal reps and senators being what they are (the biggest security leaks ever seen), anything they see, will get leaked publicly. That's what the fuss is about.
Eventually, most if not all, the truth will come out. That plus the results of all the other investigations (of varying credibility) going on, should provide enough to decide on matters of electability and impeachment. As with all things federal, it just grinds slowly.
GW
GW Johnson
McGregor, Texas
"There is nothing as expensive as a dead crew, especially one dead from a bad management decision"
Offline
Like button can go here
GW,
Once again, prosecutors are not in the exoneration business. A prosecutor's job is to prosecute. A prosecutor is not a trier of fact. Judges and juries exonerate because they are triers of fact. Moreover, judges and juries can only exonerate after criminal charges against someone are brought before them and the facts of the case have been tried by a court of law. None of that happened in this instance because the prosecutor did not find sufficient evidence to even bring criminal charges before a trier of fact / court of law. Make some attempt to imagine how much of a court's time would be wasted if every single charge that was lacking in evidence was brought before a court.
The Congress does not get to decide who is electable, either. We, the people, decide who will be elected to office. Judges may make rulings about whether or not someone is legally permitted to hold office. A judge can, for example, bar someone who is a convicted felon from holding political office. Typically, such action on the part of a court is not required. Past drug use in high school or college notwithstanding, the American people typically don't vote for felons.
I, personally, can't wait to see "the truth" come out. While we're so focused on "the truth", we really should investigate the felons who perpetrated a series of federal felonies against President Trump. Last time I checked, lying to any federal court to obtain a warrant is a federal felony. If any of their activities were seditious or subversive in nature, then those activities need to be prosecuted under 18 USC Ch115, which covers treason, sedition, and subversive activities.
Offline
Like button can go here
unforgivable.... with more bait and switch as Trump revived attacks on sanctuary cities to distract from Mueller report release
George Conway suggests Mueller found evidence of collusion
Seems there are simatics of word games going on that do not mean what you think that they mean
Offline
Like button can go here
In post 230 just above, I never said one word about prosecutors being in the exoneration business. (Quite the opposite, as a matter of fact.) Anyone reading that claim into what I wrote is reading what they want to see, not what I wrote.
GW
GW Johnson
McGregor, Texas
"There is nothing as expensive as a dead crew, especially one dead from a bad management decision"
Offline
Like button can go here
GW,
Congressional Democrats can try to impeach President Trump if they want to.
I'll laugh my rear end off when that also fails.
It's just glorious to watch.
Offline
Like button can go here
Quite! I don't think even the Insane Democrats believe they could win that!! lol 2/3 majority in Senate? Come on! They would only attempt it if they thought it could destroy as opposed to enhance his candidacy for the 2020 election. And the less loony Dems (e.g. Pelosi - strangely, despite her inability to pronounce words, to be counted as a more "sensible" Democrats in Congress) are not sure they could win on an impeachment process.
GW,
Congressional Democrats can try to impeach President Trump if they want to.
I'll laugh my rear end off when that also fails.
It's just glorious to watch.
Let's Go to Mars...Google on: Fast Track to Mars blogspot.com
Offline
Like button can go here
The impeachment process will take longer than Trump will remain in what is left of his term unless he resigns early.
Since he did not honor a subpoena from the doj; what would he do if one comes from congress...just laugh I guess.
So thats not going to work so go after his crimes after he is out of office.
Offline
Like button can go here
Louis,
I would never have imagined that a former Democrat running as a Republican would cause so many Democrats to lose their marbles over his election. Some of the exact policies that he's actually implemented were the policies that his former political party said they supported before he was elected to office. It's positively bizarre. I wish I could say that I understood what was going on in their heads, but I don't.
The field of Democrat Presidential candidates presented in the upcoming election cycle is uninspiring, to say the least. Their identity politics gimmick has played itself out and was an abysmal failure during the last election. At some point, one of their members needs to come up with some reality-based policies that would actually be better for our country than what we currently have. Thus far, they've offered a lot of nothing, or worse, self-destructive policies.
Offline
Like button can go here
When you think about it Trump was very clever the way he combined his old NY Democrat persona, with Tea Party style Republicanism and the allure of the charismatic independent candidate.
Louis,
I would never have imagined that a former Democrat running as a Republican would cause so many Democrats to lose their marbles over his election. Some of the exact policies that he's actually implemented were the policies that his former political party said they supported before he was elected to office. It's positively bizarre. I wish I could say that I understood what was going on in their heads, but I don't.
The field of Democrat Presidential candidates presented in the upcoming election cycle is uninspiring, to say the least. Their identity politics gimmick has played itself out and was an abysmal failure during the last election. At some point, one of their members needs to come up with some reality-based policies that would actually be better for our country than what we currently have. Thus far, they've offered a lot of nothing, or worse, self-destructive policies.
Let's Go to Mars...Google on: Fast Track to Mars blogspot.com
Offline
Like button can go here
At some point, one of their members needs to come up with some reality-based policies that would actually be better for our country than what we currently have. Thus far, they've offered a lot of nothing, or worse, self-destructive policies.
Use what is abundant and build to last
Offline
Like button can go here
Now that the redacted Mueller report is out, it is easy to see what Barr left out in his 4-page summary. Mueller had about 10 or 11 examples of Trump responses to the investigation that would have been slam-dunk convictable cases of obstruction of justice, had Trump's staff carried out his orders or requests.
They did not, so the crime of obstruction did not actually happen (what Barr meant by "no obstruction").
So, the intent on the part of Trump to do illegal things really was there. Had any of his staff actually carried out the actions, then Mueller (and Barr) would have reported the occurrence of an actual crime. THAT is what Mueller meant by "this report does not exonerate the president".
Now, it is time for congress and the voters to consider whether it is acceptable for a president to intend to commit the demonstrably-impeachable offense of obstruction of justice, even if the act does not get carried out. That intent alone may not be enough to impeach. But there are other investigations going on, and those results combined with these may well prove impeachable, or at least un-electable.
We'll see.
GW
GW Johnson
McGregor, Texas
"There is nothing as expensive as a dead crew, especially one dead from a bad management decision"
Offline
Like button can go here
Terraformer,
No, I think not. This is just another rebranding attempt in an unending series of failed rebranding attempts to disguise the failed ideas of socialism as something other than what they actually are. Americans have seen so many of these socialism-lite schemes that the proposals are now very tired non-starters. I'm sure his proposals are popular with Europeans and disaffected youth here in America, but tax paying Americans aren't buying it. Sooner or later, most kids grow up and grow out of their youthful socialist utopian ideas. One could be forgiven for thinking that the Democrats still haven't accepted the contents of the message. They either come up with better policies, not self-destructive policies, or they'll be voted out of office.
Look, in my world if you want something then you have to do work to get it. You don't get to throw your hands up and declare that the problems that face everyone else on the planet faces are insurmountable and that you need someone else, or a group of someone else's, such as government, to take care of you- at least not if you wish to be considered an adult worthy of the privileges that adults are entrusted with in return for demonstrating personal responsibility. I recognize that life can be and frequently is harsh and unfair, but it's never been fair and it never will be. That said, socialism is not the answer and it never has been. The evidence for that fundamental truth is socialism's string of failures to produce a desirable result is proof positive that that remains true.
There is no such thing as a successful implementation of socialism, presuming that millions of deaths from starvation do not constitute "success". No economically successful country on the planet practices socialism. China was on the brink of utter failure before their socialist government embraced the capitalist economic policies of western democracies. The socialists in western democracies benefit from the vast wealth created by capitalist economic systems, but they'd cook the goose that laid the golden egg in a New York Minute if they were permitted to exercise any significant power. Thankfully for us, they've never been given that opportunity here in America. The rest of the world had better pray that the majority of Americans never buy into such nonsense, or life won't be nearly as rosy at it is now.
Offline
Like button can go here
Now that the redacted report is out now comes the need for the unredacted for congress and the controllers in Jerry Nadler subpoenas DOJ for full Mueller report. Of course the House to begin impeachment proceedings against Trump and possibly the AG Barr as well. Sarah Sanders lied for Trump as well. Based on the redacted report the actual investigation might be restarted as a result of wikileak and any new information from those still not named for crimes which are contained but blocked out which have not been finished. Of course the mounting pressure on Facebook, twitter for allowing the undermining of fact and false information to be broadcast still has not be resovled either.
Offline
Like button can go here
SpaceNut,
I see that Democrats are still living in their own alternate reality. No member of President Trump's campaign staff, nor President Trump himself, nor any other American, for that matter, conspired with the Russians to influence the election. That was the absurd flagrant lie that the Democrats and their media lackeys tried to sell to the American people for more than two years.
It's unsurprising how desperate Democrats have become to distract attention from their growing list of federal felonies. I rather expect we'll see a few indictments over all the federal felonies committed by the Democrats' criminal lackeys in the Justice Department during this fraudulent "investigation". We really should investigate whether or not Democrats are conspiring to break any more federal laws by obstructing the lawful activities of the Executive Branch of the US Federal Government.
Exclusive of their other federal crimes related to unauthorized releases of classified information, information regarding ongoing investigations, making false official statements to a federal court, and abuses of various provisions of federal surveillance programs, these are the relevant statutes under which they may be charged:
18 U.S. Code §595. Interference by administrative employees of Federal, State, or Territorial Governments
18 U.S. Code §207. Restrictions on former officers, employees, and elected officials of the executive and legislative branches
Offline
Like button can go here
Mueller had about 10 or 11 examples of Trump responses to the investigation that would have been slam-dunk convictable cases of obstruction of justice, had Trump's staff carried out his orders or requests.
Such as?
Use what is abundant and build to last
Offline
Like button can go here
Offline
Like button can go here
SpaceNut,
The proper place to obtain the Mueller Report is the US DoJ's website, not the website of a corporate propaganda agency (CNN) that spent the last two years lying about this matter:
Justice.Gov - Special Counsel's Office
It's the link on the page entitled "Report on the Investigation into Russian Interference in the 2016 Presidential Election".
Offline
Like button can go here
Offline
Like button can go here
SpaceNut,
Once again, the proper source for the information in the Mueller report is the US Department of Justice's website for the Office of Special Counsel. It's not CNN. It's not Fox News. It's not any other corporate propaganda website, no matter their political proclivities.
Why is that concept so difficult to understand?
The US Department of Justice initiated the investigation of President Trump's election campaign, not CNN, not Fox News, not MSNBC, not ABC, not PBS, not "fill in the name of a political partisan non-governmental media organization here". I'm not interested in any other source other than the official source. Similarly, I'm not interested in the biased opinions of political partisans employed by media organizations.
There was no conspiracy between President Trump's election campaign and the Russians. That was the big bright shining L-I-E sold to the American people by various political partisans working for corporate media organizations.
The Democrats' attempts to interfere with the results of the 2016 Presidential election and the subsequent operation of the Executive Branch of the US Federal Government under President Trump are O-V-E-R.
Making false official statements to a FISA court is a federal crime.
One political party spying on the election campaign of a rival political party is a federal crime. I believe former President Nixon of the Republican Party would've been impeached by Congress for that, had he not resigned.
A Republican winning an election over a Democrat is not a crime. The reverse of that situation is equally true.
Anyone who wants to can go read what I wrote in Post #6. Every word of that is as true now as it was back when I wrote it. In Post #12, GW said, "Kbd512, you ought to ashamed of yourself falling for this crap. Come out of your echo chamber and look around at the real world once again, please."
GW is right about the fact that someone ought to be ashamed of falling for this crap, but that someone is not me. If it was me, I'd just say to myself, "Well, heck, I guess I was totally wrong about that person because I was biased for or against them. I made a mistake. Sorry about that. I'll endeavor to do better next time." Unfortunately, it's not me, so this "teachable moment" will be lost on people who are too stubborn or enamored with their own opinions of someone they dislike, for whatever reasons, to admit that a mistake was made. Some people can't admit to themselves, much less anyone else, when mistakes have been made.
In our thread about the science of climate change, when I realized I made a profound mistake, I reversed my opinion of the matter and started looking for practical ways to actually solve the problem using the technology we already have. All extraordinary claims require rock solid evidence. In this matter, unlike climate change, there isn't any. At some point, we should ask ourselves whether or not we're being honest with ourselves and in our dealings with others and we should strive to center our opinions around the objective world, a world which requires evidence to support our assertions about the way in which the world works.
This entire thread was started to discuss former FBI Director Mueller's investigation into a conspiracy between President Trump's election campaign and the Russians. There wasn't any evidence that we could find after years of looking. Unless new evidence is presented, and a claim without evidence is nothing of the sort, then this matter has been settled.
I'm sure the gossip and innuendo are fascinating to someone, but that someone is not me. Unless new evidence is presented, I'm done here.
Offline
Like button can go here
Russian election interference and the Trump campaign’s warm reception to “offers of assistance” including an infamous June 2016 meeting with a Kremlin-linked lawyer offering “dirt” on Hillary Clinton.
In trying to say nothing is wrong with this, Collusion is just what "President Donald Trump's lawyer Rudy Giuliani insisted Sunday there was "nothing wrong" with the president's 2016 campaign taking information from the Russians" has admitted to doing...
second volume, Mueller considers potential obstruction of justice by Trump or his campaign, of which 11 instances are listed.
Now the hearings will begin to go over the report and testimony which could end in impeachment sooner rather than later for Trump.
Of course the many cases that are still open could also give more information to the report out come as well filling in the blanks.
Offline
Like button can go here
I dunno about most of the discussion since, but my assessment in post 240 above is holding up quite well as very accurate.
I would only add to it that I am becoming somewhat disappointed in AG Barr, as he seems to act as if protecting the president is more important than protecting the country. He apparently lied in his summary more than I initially thought.
It does not matter from what source you get your copy of Mueller's report, as long as you take some care to see that no one altered it. Check it against multiple other versions, starting with page counts. Look for missing or altered pieces of the most significant parts.
It would appear that Trump and his White House staff have been lying about what the Mueller report says rather egregiously, and Barr a little bit. See the fact check posted on PBS's NewsHour website for a story about that, they are rather reliable as purveyors of truth. The title is "AP Fact Check: Trump, AG Barr Spread Untruths About Mueller Report", dated 4-22-19.
I'm not sure yet where the disparity between 11 or 10 episodes of possible obstruction is coming from. Published reports on that don't agree. I'm guessing that maybe 11 episodes were investigated, and 10 remained after investigation as actual possible obstruction.
I'm also guessing that the lawsuit against the house committee chair over Trump organization records is Trump fighting the possible impeachment that he so evidently fears, despite what he says in public about not fearing impeachment. The old saying "guilty dog barks loudest" definitely has some applicability with this presidency.
GW
GW Johnson
McGregor, Texas
"There is nothing as expensive as a dead crew, especially one dead from a bad management decision"
Offline
Like button can go here