What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

The Russia Investigation: Trump Pardons Flynn (10 Viewers)

Wow, this statement by Mueller lays out the case for impeachment as succinctly as anything:

2. Although the events we investigated involved discrete acts- e.g., the President's statement to Corney about the Flynn investigation, his termination of Corney, and his efforts to remove the Special Counsel- it is important to view the President's pattern of conduct as a whole. That pattern sheds light on the nature of the President's acts and the inferences that can be drawn about his intent.
a. 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.
I would have Mueller testify about this specifically. 

 
My Link

A reputable source NOT from CNN or any other liberal outlet.

It would be nice if many in this thread would do a bit of homework before throwing out false claims.
Your source did not back up your claims.  It only said how it moved things after Barr's summary.  And opined that they think they were waiting for more.

It actually supports the opposite of your claim.

 
I disagree. It's based on a failure to understand that obviously wrong/corrupt actions paired with lying about said actions don't necessarily rise to the level of criminality, and that federal prosecutors are pretty conservative in stretching statutes to do so especially with respect to rich, powerful people.

As for the collusion "fantasy," I don't see how anyone can read what the report says about what Manafort and Kliminik did together and not think it can be reasonably described as "collusion." But if you'd like to take a shot at it I'm all ears.
It isn’t surprising that the SC would continue his heavy breathing about the Russia threat.  Like the time he suggested Saddam Hussein could traffic chemical weapons into the United States, the consternation about “Russian” “meddling” is just baked in.  I always knew it would eventually circle back to the “Russia if you’re listening” stuff.  

I’ve actually explained how Manafort was trying to bring Ukraine to the West and get Yanukovych to sign an agreement that would bring them into the EU.  And how Kilimnik was affiliated with the proWestern ‘democracy’-exporting International Republican Institute, of which John McCain was chairman at one point, for over 10 years.  It’s hard to imagine what Kilimnik was supposed to do with publicly listed Spring 2016 polling data- Burr said it was essentially a conversation between friends- but it’s a huge leap to assume it had anything to do with a conspiracy to affect the 2016 election.  Those posts aren’t hard to find.  

 
And Bill Clinton lied about getting a hummer in the oval office.

The American voters whose votes are up for grabs will not care abut Sarah Sanders lying.  That's just how it is, right or wrong.  

They care about their quality of life.  At best this was an intellectual's errand with and intellectual voters impact at stake.
Perhaps but also I think most Americans would recognize the difference between lying about a sexual relationship in one's personal life and lying professionally about the FBI. 

 
Americans don't care.  There is no such thing as "That Badge".

False Narrative
We just went through a presidential election where the various candidates' 13 year old stances on the Iraq War was a consistent narrative in both primary races and in the general election.

 
Backed up by THIS:

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.

 
It isn’t surprising that the SC would continue his heavy breathing about the Russia threat.  Like the time he suggested Saddam Hussein could traffic chemical weapons into the United States, the consternation about “Russian” “meddling” is just baked in.  I always knew it would eventually circle back to the “Russia if you’re listening” stuff.  

I’ve actually explained how Manafort was trying to bring Ukraine to the West and get Yanukovych to sign an agreement that would bring them into the EU.  And how Kilimnik was affiliated with the proWestern ‘democracy’-exporting International Republican Institute, of which John McCain was chairman at one point, for over 10 years.  It’s hard to imagine what Kilimnik was supposed to do with publicly listed Spring 2016 polling data- Burr said it was essentially a conversation between friends- but it’s a huge leap to assume it had anything to do with a conspiracy to affect the 2016 election.  Those posts aren’t hard to find.  
You didn't address a single word of my post or what the Mueller report says about the Manafort-Kilimnik interaction.

 
So, Trump invited and expected help from Russia, Russia helped him within 5 hours of his public request, Trump tried to hide his communications, constantly lied about it, and did his best to obstruct on a number of fronts but largely failed because people wouldn't follow his orders, and Mueller didn't indict him because he thinks that's the job of congress, and Mueller gave Jr a pass because he's too dumb to know what he was doing, and there are 14 ongoing related investigations  criminal cases. Sounds like a nothingburger and no true patriot would care about any of it. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
It is amazing and quite telling that most of the pro-Trump people here regard the investigation and report as a "waste of time and money" despite the fact that they got exactly the result they supposedly wanted, and most of the anti-Trump people here think it was a useful and important investigation despite the fact that they did not get the result they supposedly wanted.

 
Then let the Republicans continue to go on record and let history judge them. 

I can't believe you care more about scoring political points than doing what's right. That's how we got here. 
Please spare me the self righteousness. I heard enough of that back in 1998, the last time we went through this. Here’s what I said then: impeachment is a political action.It is not a legal action. It is not a question of right and wrong.   Right and wrong don’t apply to impeachment. It’s a contest between political sides; if your side doesn’t have enough votes you lose. 

When it comes to impeachment, “political points” are all that matters. 

 
This is just incredible:

On June 8, 2017, Corney testified before Congress about his interactions with the President
before his termination, including the request for loyalty, the request that Corney " let[] Flynn go,"
and the request that Corney "lift the cloud" over the presidency caused by the ongoing
investigation.544 Corney's testimony led to a series of news reports about whether the President
had obstructedjustice.545 On June 9, 2017, the Special Counsel's Office informed the White House
Counsel's Office that investigators intended to interview intelligence community officials who had
allegedly been asked by the President to push back against the Russia investigation.546

On Monday, June 12, 2017, Christopher Ruddy, the chief executive ofNewsmax Media
and a longtime friend of the President's, met at the White House with Priebus and Bannon.547
Ruddy recalled that they told him the President was strongly considering firing the Special Counsel
and that he would do so precipitously, without vetting the decision through Administration
officials.548 Ruddy asked Priebus if Ruddy could talk publicly about the discussion they had about
the Special Counsel, and Priebus said he could.549 Priebus told Ruddy he hoped another blow up
like the one that followed the termination of Corney did not happen.550 Later that day, Ruddy
stated in a televised interview that the President was "considering perhaps terminating the Special
Counsel" based on purported conflicts of interest.551 Ruddy later told another news outlet that
"Trump is definitely considering" terminating the Special Counsel and "it's not something that's
being dismissed."552 Ruddy's comments led to extensive coverage in the media that the President
was considering firing the Special Counsel.553

White House officials were unhappy with that press coverage and Ruddy heard from
friends that the President was upset with him.554 On June 13, 2017, Sanders asked the President
for guidance on how to respond to press inquiries about the possible firing of the Special
Counsel.555 The President dictated an answer, which Sanders delivered, saying that " [w]hile the
president has every right to" fire the Special Counsel, "he has no intention to do so."556


Also on June 13, 2017, the President's personal counsel contacted the Special Counsel's
Office and raised concerns about possible conflicts.557 The President's counsel cited Mueller's
previous partnership in his law firm, his interview for the FBI Director position, and an asserted
personal relationship he had with Comey.558 That same day, Rosenstein had testified publicly
before Congress and said he saw no evidence of good cause to terminate the Special" Counsel,
including for conflicts of interest. 559 Two days later, on June 15, 2017, the Special Office

Office informed the Acting Attorney General's office about the areas of concern raised by the
President's counsel and told the President's counsel that their concerns had been communicated to
Rosenstein so that the Department of Justice could take any appropriate action.560

  • The Press Reports that the President is Being Investigated for Obstruction of Justice and the President Directs the White House Counsel to Have the Special Counsel Removed
On the evening of June l 4, 20 l 7, the Washington Post published an article stating that the
Special Counsel was investigating whether the President had attempted to obstructjustice.561 This
was the first public report that the President himself was under investigation by the Special
Counsel's Office, and cable news networks quickly picked up on the report.562 The Post story
stated that the Special Counsel was interviewing intelligence community leaders, including Coats
and Rogers, about what the President had asked them to do in response to Corney's March 20,
20 l 7 testimony; that the inquiry into obstruction marked "a major turning point" in the
investigation; and that while "Trump had received private assurances from then-FBI Director
James B. Corney starting in January that he was not personally under investigation," "[ o ]fficials
say that changed shortly after Corney's firing."563 That evening, at approximately l 0:3 l p.m., the
President called McGahn on McGahn' s personal cell phone and they spoke for about l 5
minutes.564 McGahn did not have a clear memory of the call but thought they might have discussed
the stories reporting that the President was under investigation.565

Beginning early the next day, June 15, 2017, the President issued a series of tweets
acknowledging the existence of the obstruction investigation and criticizing it. He wrote: "They
made up a phony collusion with the Russians story, found zero proof, so now they go for
obstruction of justice on the phony story. Nice";566 "You are witnessing the single greatest WITCH
HUNT in American political history-led by some very bad and conflicted people!";567 and
"Crooked H destroyed phones w/ hammer, 'bleached' emails, & had husband meet w/AG days
before she was cleared- & they talk about obstruction?"
568 The next day, June 16, 2017, the
President wrote additional tweets criticizing the investigation: "After 7 months of investigations
& committee hearings about my ' collusion with the Russians,' nobody has been able to show any
proof. Sad!";569 and "I am being investigated for firing the FBI Director by the man who told me
to fire the FBI Director! Witch Hunt."570

On Saturday, June 17, 2017, the President called McGahn and directed him to have the
Special Counsel removed
.571 McGahn was at home and the President was at Camp David.572 In
interviews with this Office, McGahn recalled that the President called him at home twice and on
both occasions directed him to call Rosenstein and say that Mueller had conflicts that precluded
him from serving as Special Counsel
.573



 
Last edited by a moderator:
It been said, but I think it bears repeating - I think Barr did a reasonable job with the redactions.  He should have worked with Congress to petition the courts to release the Grand Jury testimony - but otherwise, my senses are not offended by the redactions - at least in terms of the public release.

Barr deserves all the criticism he gets for injecting his views - and legal conclusions - but on the redactions, I think he did a pretty decent job.

 
So are you saying that the source in my link is biased and can't be trusted? Just looking for a yes or no answer here so we can be clear on where you stand.
I think any poll referenced by a left leaning outlet should be thrown out given the network's polling track record and overall lack of credibility as perceived by the middle and the right.

 
So, Trump invited and expected help from Russia, Russia helped him within 5 hours of his public request, Trump tried to hide his communications, constantly lied about it, and did his best to obstruct on a number of fronts but largely failed because people wouldn't follow his orders, and Mueller didn't indict him because he thinks that's the job of congress, and Mueller gave Jr a pass because he's too dumb to know what he was doing, and there are 14 ongoing related investigations. Sounds like a nothingburger and no true patriot would care about any of it. 
Also...all of that is galvanizing and good for the right...and bad for dems.

 
Please spare me the self righteousness. I heard enough of that back in 1998, the last time we went through this. Here’s what I said then: impeachment is a political action.It is not a legal action. It is not a question of right and wrong.   Right and wrong don’t apply to impeachment. It’s a contest between political sides; if your side doesn’t have enough votes you lose. 

When it comes to impeachment, “political points” are all that matters. 
Shame on you.  

 
9/7/2018

Means absolute squat in April of 2019 with information out there now.
It took me 10 seconds to find centrist media outlets' polling on the subject...I'm sure there are more and I'm sure more will be coming out in the near future.

Do your homework.

 
No celebrating from me but relief that the President didn't do what people thought he did. You can say he is a lot of things, most of which I won't argue with, but he isn't a traitor to the country as so many people called him. That would have been unforgivable and I, for one, am glad it wasn't proven to be true.
Agreed.  I really can't care much about obstruction now that collusion is off the table.

 
It took me 10 seconds to find centrist media outlets' polling on the subject...I'm sure there are more and I'm sure more will be coming out in the near future.

Do your homework.
From 2018...the subject it what they care now that the report is out in more detail.  The link had zero relevance to what is being discussed.

What homework?  Im not the one claiming what people think about and how great all of this is for the right as you are.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
You're the one who said this would harm the Dems' 2020 chances.  In response I offered polling evidence that most Americans don't care about this stuff. Now you're producing polling evidence that voters don't care about this stuff.

:confused:
Don't care meaning that it doesn't negatively impact Trump's political future.   

 
Last edited by a moderator:
From 2018...the subject it what they care now that the report is out in more detail.  The link had zero relevance to what is being discussed.
there are plenty of other polls, one of which I posted that reinforces what I've been educating this thread on.

 
When you read the Mueller report, it becomes really clear that Trump has a pattern of barking out orders and commands that are blatantly illegal and gets ignored or walked back by his staff.

This alone should be enough for him to lose by a historically wide margin in 2020 if the Republican Party base had any sense of pride or responsibility. This is 100% disqualifying stuff.

 
So are you saying that the source in my link is biased and can't be trusted? Just looking for a yes or no answer here so we can be clear on where you stand.
I think any poll referenced by a left leaning outlet should be thrown out given the network's polling track record and overall lack of credibility as perceived by the middle and the right.
Good to have your thoughts on the record.

Because the source in my link was actually Fox News.

I chose to link to CNN's story on it to see if your own inherent bias would cause you to try to discredit it with a knee-jerk reaction.

My suspicion was correct.

You've been :own3d: again.

 
It been said, but I think it bears repeating - I think Barr did a reasonable job with the redactions.  He should have worked with Congress to petition the courts to release the Grand Jury testimony - but otherwise, my senses are not offended by the redactions - at least in terms of the public release.

Barr deserves all the criticism he gets for injecting his views - and legal conclusions - but on the redactions, I think he did a pretty decent job.
He was left with little choice.

His lawyerly handling of issues of collusion and obstruction can be, perhaps by himself, defended as being factually correct, despite being incredibly misleading overall.

Him redacting this report and its later release would not be defensible.  I think he was forced into doing this, and did everything possible to soften the blow this would have on Trump, with the initial summary, with the 2 week wait, with communication with the white house, and releasing it before a holiday weekend, and a press conference where he repeatedly stated a set of conclusions incredibly favorable to Trump.

I'm not in a hurry to grant him kudos for doing the most basic thing he should've done within days of receiving the report.  I appreciate your willingness to try to extend grace to him, but I think he's wholly undeserving.

 
Please spare me the self righteousness. I heard enough of that back in 1998, the last time we went through this. Here’s what I said then: impeachment is a political action.It is not a legal action. It is not a question of right and wrong.   Right and wrong don’t apply to impeachment. It’s a contest between political sides; if your side doesn’t have enough votes you lose. 

When it comes to impeachment, “political points” are all that matters. 
correct, impeachment is just politics and perception

Americans are fed up with it and want to see results that impact their quality of life.

 
When you read the Mueller report, it becomes really clear that Trump has a pattern of barking out orders and commands that are blatantly illegal and gets ignored or walked back by his staff.

This alone should be enough for him to lose by a historically wide margin in 2020 if the Republican Party base had any sense of pride or responsibility. This is 100% disqualifying stuff.
"I'm authoritarian by nature and repeatedly instruct those around me to do illegal, immoral, or unethical things, but by and large I surround myself with people who have more integrity than I do and that prevents the worst from happening.

Vote TRUMP 2020!  An ineffective authoritarian whose ineptitude you can trust!"

 
there are plenty of other polls, one of which I posted that reinforces what I've been educating this thread on.
Ive addressed your first poll...which only stated that Barrs first letter didn't move the needle on anything (didn't help him or hurt him) and they opined that people were waiting for more information.

That didn't reinforce anything...and not sure proclaiming things as you have has educated anyone.

Again I ask directly...have you read any of the report or summaries that have been discussed?

 
It been said, but I think it bears repeating - I think Barr did a reasonable job with the redactions.  He should have worked with Congress to petition the courts to release the Grand Jury testimony - but otherwise, my senses are not offended by the redactions - at least in terms of the public release.

Barr deserves all the criticism he gets for injecting his views - and legal conclusions - but on the redactions, I think he did a pretty decent job.


Boy Barr looks terrible. Just awful. 
:lol:

 
Good to have your thoughts on the record.

Because the source in my link was actually Fox News.

I chose to link to CNN's story on it to see if your own inherent bias would cause you to try to discredit it with a knee-jerk reaction.

My suspicion was correct.

You've been :own3d: again.
:rolleyes:

Is that what this forum has come to.  What a joke.

I don't ready anything from CNN regardless of their references.  I will occasionally watch to understand the left talking points.   Your little exercise is representative of the exact charade the Democrats have been putting on the past several years.  Sad and pathetic.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
correct, impeachment is just politics and perception

Americans are fed up with it and want to see results that impact their quality of life.
If that were the case they would still not be supporting the GOP that allows Mitch McConnell to continue to table discussion on legislation that can impact the people.

 
He was left with little choice.

His lawyerly handling of issues of collusion and obstruction can be, perhaps by himself, defended as being factually correct, despite being incredibly misleading overall.

Him redacting this report and its later release would not be defensible.  I think he was forced into doing this, and did everything possible to soften the blow this would have on Trump, with the initial summary, with the 2 week wait, with communication with the white house, and releasing it before a holiday weekend, and a press conference where he repeatedly stated a set of conclusions incredibly favorable to Trump.

I'm not in a hurry to grant him kudos for doing the most basic thing he should've done within days of receiving the report.  I appreciate your willingness to try to extend grace to him, but I think he's wholly undeserving.
I think that is fair - but I still appreciate that this was not a drawn out legal fight to get the report out to the public - where people like me can read the report and draw our own conclusions.

I was anticipating much worse, and perhaps that is because the barr (he he) was set so low.

But it does call into question Barr's "summary" - given the actual contents of the report.  "Misleading" is probably the most generous description.

 
Good to have your thoughts on the record.

Because the source in my link was actually Fox News.

I chose to link to CNN's story on it to see if your own inherent bias would cause you to try to discredit it with a knee-jerk reaction.

My suspicion was correct.

You've been :own3d: again.
:rolleyes:

Is that what this forum has come to.  What a joke.
When you dig up polls from 7 months ago in order to prove a point that has already been debunked by your own network, you probably shouldn't be tossing around the word "joke" in regards to the content in this forum.

 
This alone should be enough for him to lose by a historically wide margin in 2020 if the Republican Party base had any sense of pride or responsibility. This is 100% disqualifying stuff.
Yeah, nobody believes that.

What percentage of votes do you think Trump gets in 2020...that alone should disprove your absurd conclusion.

 
You didn't address a single word of my post or what the Mueller report says about the Manafort-Kilimnik interaction.
I knew it was a waste of time to bother replying, but I did address the ‘take a shot’ portion explicitly by outlining how Manafort/Kilimnik were in fact serving proWestern interests (Manafort in Ukraine and Kilimnik with the IRI in Moscow), not proRussian or “collusion.”  So you either can’t read words or are being disingenuous again.  

As for what ‘Mueller’s report says,’ looks like it says it had nothing to do collusion: https://twitter.com/aaronjmate/status/1118925339126845440

So yes, collusion is a complete fantasy.  It didn’t happen.  It is a straightup falsehood. 

 
Barr does look pretty bad.  :shrug:

His redactions are minimal, but his "summary" letter and press conference were "Misleading" at best, and probably very close to an outright lie when it comes to why Mueller did not reach a conclusion on Obstruction.
Yeah...its hard to look at the totality of what we have seen (especially that first "summary") and now pre-emptive presser and conclude Barr comes off well here.

Of course...people think this whole thing looks bad for democrats and good for Trump and the GOP.  So, here we are trying to again debate facts vs. feelings.

 
Yeah, nobody believes that.

What percentage of votes do you think Trump gets in 2020...that alone should disprove your absurd conclusion.
The absurdity is that you would willingly vote for a person who routinely tried to break the law but was stopped from doing so by his staff either by ignoring him or convincing him not to do it. You clearly think that doesn't matter. Says far more about YOU than it does about ME.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top