• Our software update is now concluded. You will need to reset your password to log in. In order to do this, you will have to click "Log in" in the top right corner and then "Forgot your password?".
  • Welcome to PokéCommunity! Register now and join one of the best fan communities on the 'net to talk Pokémon and more! We are not affiliated with The Pokémon Company or Nintendo.
    Register

Muller Report on Trump and Russia finished and submitted

EnglishALT

500
Posts
5
Years
    • Maedar said:
    Again, good luck getting the House to agree to more investigations, ALT.

    Cause they won't.
    Click to expand...

    Won't need to, Lindsey Graham has already suggested he is planning to subpoena Comey and is within his power to subpoena others, and the DoJ can launch any investigation they want or appoint a special prosecutor or investigator like Muller to look into it.

    Maedar said:
    I actually find it kind of disturbing that so many people actually think using stolen evidence will gain a conviction. Know what "fruit of the poisonous tree" is?
    Click to expand...

    Who has suggested anything about using "stolen evidence"? The FISA document, Steele dossier, and information about the Clinton's contacts with Fusion GPS and by extension Natalia Veselnitskaya are well known.
     

    Maedar

    Banned
    402
    Posts
    6
    Years
    • Won't need to, Lindsey Graham has already suggested he is planning to subpoena Comey and is within his power to subpoena others, and the DoJ can launch any investigation they want or appoint a special prosecutor or investigator like Muller to look into it.
    Click to expand...

    The Senate has subpoena power?

    Who has suggested anything about using "stolen evidence"? The FISA document, Steele dossier, and information about the Clinton's contacts with Fusion GPS and by extension Natalia Veselnitskaya are well known.
    Click to expand...

    Are you now denying that the DNC was hacked and information taken by WikiLeaks?

    That is a blatant example of cyber-crime.
     
    Last edited:

    EnglishALT

    500
    Posts
    5
    Years
    • Maedar said:
    Are you now denying that the DNC was hacked and information taken by WikiLeaks?
    Click to expand...

    No, however I do not see how it is relevant to investigating the Obama Administration's use of a FISA warrant with the Steele dossier, or the Clinton Campaign potentially working with Fusion GPS and Natalia Veselnitskaya to set up a sting meeting at Trump Tower. Neither of those things involved hack DNC emails.

    Maedar said:
    The Senate has subpoena power?
    Click to expand...

    Yes, it always has.

    https://www.businessinsider.com/lindsey-graham-senate-judiciary-subpoena-james-comey-2019-3
     
    Last edited:
    gimmepie

    gimmepie

    25,538
    Posts
    12
    Years
    • Maedar said:
    Then we agree.

    Stolen evidence is not legally admissible in a court of law. Case dismissed. Good luck next time.
    Click to expand...

    I think you're going to need to do a better job of addressing his argument then that on this one.
    I'm well with you on a lot of things but doing this doesn't help perpetuate a reasonable discussion.
     

    Maedar

    Banned
    402
    Posts
    6
    Years
    • I think you're going to need to do a better job of addressing his argument then that on this one.
    I'm well with you on a lot of things but doing this doesn't help perpetuate a reasonable discussion.
    Click to expand...

    I just see his views as blatant hypocrisy, Pie.

    They spend 2 years shouting about "witch hunts" and all, and now they want to restart THEIR witch hunt again. Lindsey is even bringing up the whole tarmac thing again, something that I truly believe would be beneath even Howard Stern.

    The election was two years ago. WHY the obsession? WHY can't they let it go?

    And for the record, ALT is the one who tried to turn this into a discussion on Hillary. This was about the Mueller report until he posted:

    The report will come out, but that should not stop proper investigations into those like Colmey and the use of the now discredited Steele dossier as Senator Graham is now calling to do. After two years of this, maybe it is time for a special council with the same power to prosecute to probe the Obama Administration and Clinton Campaign when it comes to the Steele dossier, and the FISA application on Trump's campaign.
    Click to expand...

    Again and again, they just will not let it go.
     
    Last edited:
    gimmepie

    gimmepie

    25,538
    Posts
    12
    Years
    • Maedar said:
    Snip
    Click to expand...

    I agree that we should try and focus this on Trump and the Mueller report since that is what the thread topic is primarily about. Doesn't really change the fact that you can't just shrug off an argument because you don't like it.

    Anyway, we're straying from the topic at hand, so feel free to jump back into it.
     
    LDSman

    LDSman

    371
    Posts
    6
    Years
    • Seen Nov 19, 2022
    Maedar said:
    Then we agree.

    Stolen evidence is not legally admissible in a court of law. Case dismissed. Good luck next time.
    Click to expand...

    In some cases, it depends on who stole it. The govt can't steal evidence to use in court but can use evidence revealed by someone else. It's complicated.
     
    gimmepie

    gimmepie

    25,538
    Posts
    12
    Years
    • So, can anyone can confirm this for me? Supposedly the report explicitly states that while it has not confirmed collusion it also is not refuting it as a possibility.
     
    LDSman

    LDSman

    371
    Posts
    6
    Years
    • Seen Nov 19, 2022
    gimmepie said:
    So, can anyone can confirm this for me? Supposedly the report explicitly states that while it has not confirmed collusion it also is not refuting it as a possibility.
    Click to expand...

    One of the local radio stations briefly touched in that. Basically it's impossible to disprove a negative. There was no evidence of collusion but they won't be able to find evidence that there wasn't collusion.
     
    gimmepie

    gimmepie

    25,538
    Posts
    12
    Years
    • LDSman said:
    One of the local radio stations briefly touched in that. Basically it's impossible to disprove a negative. There was no evidence of collusion but they won't be able to find evidence that there wasn't collusion.
    Click to expand...

    I wouldn't say no evidence. Not having enough for a conviction isn't the same as no evidence. I find it very odd that there was nothing to hide when five of Trump's staff members plead guilty to obstruction charges based around lying or withholding evidence of Russian connections.

    I don't want to see anyone, even Trump, illegally jailed without sufficient evidence, but you just can't deny that there is something shady here and I must admit that I do share some of Maedar's scepticism of Bar given that he seems to have a degree of bias on the matter... although finding someone actually neutral would be very difficult.
     

    Akio123

    Sadness forever...
    5,094
    Posts
    19
    Years
    • EnglishALT said:
    I guess the Democrats want to waste time in court for the next few weeks. Barr releasing the Grand Jury information would be an illegal act, and one Democrats would lose a court battle over. The report is promised by mid April, why not just wait?
    Click to expand...

    A. You have no idea that Dems would lose in a court battle. The Grand Jury rule is entirely too broad that could apply to 60% of the report. (Btw with the exceptions technically members whose names have been leaked could assist the staff of the House Judiciary commitee per the rule)
    B. if we entertain the notion that it's about leacking personal information, the Mueller report could just be released to the Gang of 8 and they could read it in a secure location.
    C. Lest we not forget that Barr is a political appointee, whose son now works in the administration. To quote Stacy Abrams, No collusion is a pundit's analysis to a complicated question. If there is no collusion, or at least no truly damaging information (which probably is not the case given the push back from Mueller staff with Barr's letter).
     
    Last edited:

    EnglishALT

    500
    Posts
    5
    Years
    • Akio123 said:
    A. You have no idea that Dems would lose in a court battle. The Grand Jury rule is entirely too broad that could apply to 60% of the report. (Btw with the exceptions technically members whose names have been leaked could assist the staff of the House Judiciary commitee per the rule)
    Click to expand...

    The Democrats are basing all their hopes on an old Watergate decision Haldemen v Sirica to be precise in which a report on Grand Jury testimony, not actual Grand Jury testimony can be released. I would give Kimberley Strassel's long twitter report a read to better understand why the Dems face a losing argument here.

    https://twitter.com/KimStrassel/status/1113207186728005633

    Akio123 said:
    B. if we entertain the notion that it's about leacking personal information, the Mueller report could just be released to the Gang of 8 and they could read it in a secure location.
    Click to expand...

    Doesn't matter, releasing Grand Jury testimony is an illegal act, no matter who is viewing it.

    Akio123 said:
    C. Lest we not forget that Barr is a political appointee, whose son now works in the administration. To quote Stacy Abrams, No collusion is a pundit's analysis to a complicated question. If there is no collusion, or at least no truly damaging information (which probably is not the case given the push back from Mueller staff with Barr's letter).
    Click to expand...

    Yawn Mueller filled his staff with Democrats, and friends of friends are pushing back, tell me when Muller ( Who is working with Barr ) says something. Mind you the idea that Barr put out a false report is ludicrous in and of itself, Mueller is working with Barr on the redacted report, if Muller believed something did not need to be redacted, or that the summaries were ready to be released now, he could say so directly. At the very least, Mueller could pull his cooperation, from Barr if he believed the AG was being dishonest.

    Besides what exactly would Barr gain from misleading the Congress and the public about the report? The report is coming out in less than two weeks at most, which means that at most Barr gave Trump a few weeks of good press at most before substantial damage happened. Furthermore the report was dropped on a Friday night before March Madness weekend, if the report was damming for Trump, then the best time to release it would have been the weekend that everyone was focused on the tournament.

    The conspiracy does not pass the smell test, and in the end sounds like some of the Democrats on Mueller's team whining.
     
    You must log in or register to reply here.
    Back
    Top