Think about what you are doing. You are slowly methodically going through the report specifically looking for juicy tidbits and cherry picking them to fit your narrative of Trump as a very bad person. You are then pointing out those cherry picked tidbits and putting your spin on what they mean.
While you might deem that to be important work as part of a fact finding mission, I find it to be a useless exercise. It will have absolutely no impact on anything.
But there is still popcorn.
It’s not useless. The Mueller Report is the most important document issued this year and perhaps for many years. This thread is pointing out what people haven’t had a chance to read. These facts do very much matter. With or without popcorn.
#factsmatter.
Given that nothing will come of your efforts, I find them to be useless.
Obviously I disagree.
The thread is pointing out what you are choosing to share, while adding your own spin.
Ahhh! But you aren’t simply presenting unaltered text. You are adding your interpretation; your spin.
I have no problem with that and won’t interfere with that endeavor.
False statements by Trump and the campaign about connections to Russia. This starts on page 17:
- The Trump Campaign Reacts to Allegations That Russia was Seeking to Aid
Candidate TrumpIn the days that followed WikiLeaks’s July 22, 2016 release of hacked DNC emails, the
Trump Campaign publicly rejected suggestions that Russia was seeking to aid candidate Trump.
On July 26, 2016, Trump tweeted that it was “[c]razy” to suggest that Russia was "dealing with
Trump"32 and that “[f]or the record,” he had “ZERO investments in Russia.” 33
In a press conference the next day, July 27, 2016, Trump characterized “this whole thing
with Russia” as “a total deflection” and stated that it was “farfetched” and "ridiculous."34 Trump
said that the assertion that Russia had hacked the emails was unproven, but stated that it would
give him “no pause” if Russia had Clinton’s emails.35 Trump added, "Russia, if you’re listening,
I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing. I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press."36 Trump also said that “there’s nothing that I can think of that I’ d rather
do than have Russia friendly as opposed to the way they are right now,” and in response to a
question about whether he would recognize Crimea as Russian territory and consider lifting
sanctions, Trump replied, "We 'll be looking at that. Yeah, we’ll be looking."37During the press conference, Trump repeated “I have nothing to do with Russia” five
times.38 He stated that “the closest [he] came to Russia” was that Russians may have purchased a
home or condos from him.39 He said that after he held the Miss Universe pageant in Moscow in
2013 he had be.en interested in working with Russian companies that “wanted to put a lot of money
into developments in Russia” but " it never worked out."40 He explained, "[t]rankly, I didn’t want
to do it for a couple of different reasons. But we had a major developer … that wanted to develop
property in Moscow and other places. But we decided not to do it."41 The Trump Organization,
however, had been pursuing a building project in Moscow-the Trump Tower Moscow projectfrom approximately September 2015 through June 2016, and the candidate was regularly updated
on developments, including possible trips by Michael Cohen to Moscow to promote the deal and
by Trump himself to finalize it.42
Cohen recalled speaking with Trump after the press conference about Trump’s denial of
any business dealings in Russia, which Cohen regarded as untrue.43 Trump told Cohen that Trump
Tower Moscow was not a deal yet and said, "Why mention it if it is not a deal?"44 According to
Cohen, at around this time, in response to Trump’s disavowal of connections to Russia, campaign advisors had developed a “party line” that Trump had no business with Russia and no connections
to Russia.45
Lock her up! Lock her up!
An incredible amount of lies directly out of the Presidents mouth about Russia.
There is a long section about the well-known June 9 meeting in Trump Tower. I won’t post it all. But here’s the introductory section that includes Michael Cohen’s statement that he says Trump may have been told about it. It begins on Page 109.
- June 9, 2016 Meeting at Trump Tower
On June 9, 2016, senior representatives of the Trump Campaign met in Trump Tower with
a Russian attorney expecting to receive derogatory information about Hillary Clinton from the
Russian government. The meeting was proposed to Donald Trump Jr. in an email from Robert
Goldstone, at the request of his then-client Emin Agalarov, the son of Russian real-estate developer
Aras Agalarov. Goldstone relayed to Trump Jr. that the “Crown prosecutor of Russia … offered
to provide the Trump Campaign with some official documents and information that would
incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia” as “part of Russia and its government’s support
for Mr. Trump.” Trump Jr. immediately responded that “if it’s what you say I love it,” and arranged
the meeting through a series of emails and telephone calls.
Trump Jr. invited campaign chairman Paul Manafort and senior advisor Jared Kushner to
attend the meeting, and both attended. Members of the Campaign discussed the meeting before it
occurred, and Michael Cohen recalled that Trump Jr. may have told candidate Trump about an
upcoming meeting to receive adverse information about Clinton, without linking the meeting to
Russia. According to written answers submitted by President Trump, he has no recollection of
learning of the meeting at the time, and the Office found no documentary evidence showing that he
was made aware of the meeting–or its Russian connection-before it occurred.
The Russian attorney who spoke at the meeting, Natalia Veselnitskaya, had previously
worked for the Russian government and maintained a relationship with that government throughout
this period of time. She claimed that funds derived from illegal activities in Russia were provided
to Hillary Clinton and other Democrats. Trump Jr. requested evidence to support those claims, but
Veselnitskaya did not provide such information. She and her associates then turned to a critique of
the origins of the Magnitsky Act, a 2012 statute that imposed financial and travel sanctions on
Russian officials and that resulted in a retaliatory ban on adoptions of Russian children. Trump Jr.
suggested that the issue could be revisited when and if candidate Trump was elected. After the
election, Veselnitskaya made additional efforts to follow up on the meeting, but the Trump
Transition Team did not engage.
Well… to combat that… one could read it and see what is actually in it, come to their own conclusions and then have a discussion that involves a shared reality.
I don’t know what I just read but it was amazing.
Good lord.
Wow !
Every prosecutor claims that their findings are proven by the fact patterns they allege were found. That does not mean that the prosecutor’s claims are true, nor that the fact patterns reported by the prosecutor consisted of actual facts. That’s why we have due process. We cannot know whether the prosecutor’s claims hold up to cross-examination, until they are contested in a court - in this case, in the senate.
If the Dems think they can, the have the ability to impeach the President with them, and to try Trump in the senate. Until they do, Trump is innocent. It’s called due process.
If unknowingly re-tweeting someone’s scam tweet because it looked real and confirmed our biases were illegal, we’d all be criminals.
I think you really care.
And you would be wrong! 
Since your are reading a quote from the Mueller Report how can this possibly be something madasheck made up? Unless you are suggesting madasheck wrote the Mueller Report… which at least would be a novel position – on that I hope you can 100 percent substantiate.
The Democrats are following the procedure you suggest and holding hearings to understand the material and decide on impeachment. This is being blocked at every step by the Trump Administrations refusal to answer subpoenas, provide documents or testimony. Please acknowledge you belief in the process by stating how much you oppose the Administration’s stonewalling. Right now Trump is innocent before the law, but Mueller’s Report makes it clear that were it not for DOJ rules that a sitting President cannot be indicted, there clearly is a prima fasciae (grand jury standard) case to bring charges.
Rules that prevent charges from being brought do not prove innocence… and the case in the Mueller Report is clear to all who read it rather than hiding being Minister of Disinformation Barr’s phony summaries.
I don’t agree that the Mueller report clearly makes what you claim clear. He could easily have clearly stated that in his report, but held back from doing so. Mueller gave Barr an insipid report on which to close the investigation and was inviting Barr to close all investigations into the deep state as a quid pro quo. Now that Barr has not called a halt to investigating the alphabet agencies and bureaucrat white ants whom Mueller was installed to protect, Mueller wants to revise his report into a more condemnatory iteration. He’s too late. He played his hand badly and lost.
If the evidence in the report is clearly presenting clear evidence of wrong-doing, there is no need to re-interview the witnesses whom Mueller claimed incriminated Trump. They can be cross-examined before the Senate, and Mueller’s report will be seen to be either honest or pretentious in that forum. You can’t say the report is clear and credible in establishing a prima facie case and then say the House needs to hear and find more evidence before impeaching. That is self-contradictory.
No contradiction at all. You are ignoring the Constitution. Before the Senate trial can be held the House must impeach the President. That requires a hearings, a vote in the Judicicary Committee, and vote in the full House. Why are you proposing ignoring the Constitution to protect the President?
As to whether the Mueller Report is clear or not, the presentation here makes it easier for people to read and make up their own minds.
She DID a crime.
She destroyed the evidence subpoenaed by FBI.
