I think "we never said collusion" is the dumbest fucking pivot yet.
And this is a story that also had "BARR LIED BECAUSE WHAT WE SAID ABOUT WHAT HE SAID WASN'T TRUE" and "I don't think surveillance is spying."
Carrie, on hearing of Siphonophores wrote:I heard you like jellyfish, so I put jellyfish in your jellyfish.
Absentia wrote:d) Also basically impossible to prove liability on obstruction because it's an unprecedented situation and subject to interpretation regarding intent.
Our investigation found multiple acts by the President that were capable of exerting undue influence over law enforcement investigations, including the Russian-interference and obstruction investigations. The incidents were often carried out through one-on-one meetings in which the President sought to use his official power outside of usual channels. These actions ranged from efforts to remove the Special Counsel and to reverse the effect of the Attorney General’s recusal; to the attempted use of official power to limit the scope of the investigation; to direct and indirect contacts with witnesses with the potential to influence their testimony. Viewing the acts collectively can help to illuminate their significance. For example, the President’s direction to McGahn to have the Special Counsel removed was followed almost immediately by his direction to Lewandowski to tell the Attorney General to limit the scope of the Russia investigation to prospective election-interference only—a temporal connection that suggests that both acts were taken with a related purpose with respect to the investigation.
The President's efforts to influence the investigation were mostly unsuccessful, but that is largely because the persons who surrounded the President declined to carry out orders or accede to his requests.
As for the constitutional arguments, we recognized that the Department of Justice and the courts have not definitively resolved these constitutional issues. We therefore analyzed the President’s position through the framework of Supreme Court precedent addressing the separation of powers. Under that framework, we concluded, Article II of the Constitution does not categorically and permanently immunize the President from potential liability for the conduct that we investigated. Rather, our analysis led us to conclude that the obstruction-of-justice statutes can validly prohibit a President’s corrupt efforts to use his official powers to curtail, end, or interfere with an investigation.
In evaluating whether evidence about collective action of multiple individuals constituted a crime, we applied the framework of conspiracy law, not the concept of “collusion.” In so doing, the Office recognized that the word “collud[e]” was used in communications with the Acting Attorney General confirming certain aspects of the investigation’s scope and that the term has frequently been invoked in public reporting about the investigation. But collusion is not a specific offense or theory of liability found in the United States Code, nor is it a term of art in federal criminal law. For those reasons, the Office’s focus in analyzing questions of joint criminal liability was on conspiracy as defined in federal law.
Although the investigation established that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome, and that the Campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts, the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.
To reach larger U.S. audiences, the IRA purchased advertisements from Facebook that promoted the IRA groups on the newsfeeds of U.S. audience members. According to Facebook, the IRA purchased over 3,500 advertisements, and the expenditures totaled approximately $100,000.
Carrie, on hearing of Siphonophores wrote:I heard you like jellyfish, so I put jellyfish in your jellyfish.
Carrie, on hearing of Siphonophores wrote:I heard you like jellyfish, so I put jellyfish in your jellyfish.
A Combustible Lemon wrote:Also let's have a little fun with hooooooooooooooooooooooow much goal post moving is involved in the idea that media got this right and the mueller report vindicates them
Absentia wrote:The factual reporting of events like the Trump Tower meeting was pretty accurate; Don Jr. did take a meeting with Russian agents, and Mueller essentially concluded that he was too clueless to realize the implications.
Absentia wrote:Trump's campaign was soliciting WikiLeaks for info that they did get from Russia
Absentia wrote:Manafort was discussing Ukrainian "peace plans" with Konstantin Kilimnik while he was Trump's campaign chair
Absentia wrote:The only new thing we learned about all of that yesterday is that there was apparently no grand underlying conspiracy to tie it all together
Absentia wrote:"don't get your news from hack pundits like Rachel Maddow or Sean Hannity (or Glenn Greenwald)."
Carrie, on hearing of Siphonophores wrote:I heard you like jellyfish, so I put jellyfish in your jellyfish.
This report shows that the Trump campaign was reasonably aware of the Russian efforts, at least on the hacking side. They were aware the Russians sought to help them win. They welcomed that assistance. Instead of warning the American public, they instead devised a public relations and campaign strategy that sought to capitalize on Russia’s illicit assistance. In other words, the Russians and the Trump campaign shared a common goal, and each side worked to achieve that goal with basic knowledge of the other side’s intention. They just didn’t agree to work together toward that goal.
Carrie, on hearing of Siphonophores wrote:I heard you like jellyfish, so I put jellyfish in your jellyfish.
A Combustible Lemon wrote:So what you're saying is that the Hillary campaign was colluding with Russia because Steele sourced his info from Russian officials. Or is it opposition research.
Let's see a single difference between what Steele did and what happened at the Trump Tower meeting.
The bar you're supposed to be clearing is that what Trump did was massively, obviously treasonous. Not even impeachable, but literally espionage. It's fucking easy to be on the right side of that bar and most of you weren't for some reason. Have the self-awareness to figure out why. And try not to drag the people who were correct into it. It's not Sean Hannity's fault you were wrong.
Absentia wrote:You must have gotten a great deal on all that straw. I have no idea who you're arguing with, but it's not me.
Carrie, on hearing of Siphonophores wrote:I heard you like jellyfish, so I put jellyfish in your jellyfish.
Carrie, on hearing of Siphonophores wrote:I heard you like jellyfish, so I put jellyfish in your jellyfish.
Carrie, on hearing of Siphonophores wrote:I heard you like jellyfish, so I put jellyfish in your jellyfish.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests