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 (2 Viewers)

Bozeman Bruiser said:
Just to clarify, the brilliant and honest Robert Mueller could not establish that any members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with Russia in it's election interference activities.

And you Trump haters are still holding out hope that this means there is evidence it occurred, but the brilliant and honest Robert Mueller simply couldn't "establish" the connection?

Is that how far the goal posts have been moved?

The honest and brilliant Robert Mueller could not establish a connection but somehow the House Democrats are going to prove this connection?
Click to expand...
I think they're also interested in the 10 instances of obstruction Mueller laid out in Vol. 2.

 
Bozeman Bruiser said:
Just to clarify, the brilliant and honest Robert Mueller could not establish that any members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with Russia in it's election interference activities.

And you Trump haters are still holding out hope that this means there is evidence it occurred, but the brilliant and honest Robert Mueller simply couldn't "establish" the connection?

Is that how far the goal posts have been moved?

The honest and brilliant Robert Mueller could not establish a connection but somehow the House Democrats are going to prove this connection?
Click to expand...
It's not about holding out hope. It's about phrasing things accurately. It's not accurate (just based on what's in the report) to say that Mueller established that there was no collusion.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Maurile Tremblay said:
It's in the introduction to Volume I; he just misquoted the exact language.
Click to expand...
It is in the introduction to volume 1.  It states "the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities."

So, with that said, Mueller being asked when did he conclude the above is a valid question.

 
Don't Noonan said:
OMG - just deal with the facts, you will be okay I promise.

Mueller stated in the report "did not find that the Trump campaign, or anyone associated with it, conspired or coordinated with the Russian government"
Click to expand...
Second, while the investigation identified numerous links between individuals with ties to the Russian government and individuals associated with the Trump Campaign, the evidence was not sufficient to support criminal charges. Among other things, the evidence was not sufficient to charge any Campaign official as an unregistered agent of the Russian government or other Russian principal. And our evidence about the June 9, 2016 meeting and WikiLeaks' s releases of hacked materials was not sufficient to charge a criminal campaign-finance violation. Further, the evidence was not sufficient to charge that any member of the Trump Campaign conspired with representatives of the Russian government to interfere in the 2016 election.

Accordingly, while this report embodies factual and legal determinations that the Office believes to be accurate and complete to the greatest extent possible, given these identified gaps, the Office cannot rule out the possibility that the unavailable information would shed additional light on (or cast in a new light) the events described in the report. - EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TO VOLUME I, pg 9.

No where does Mueller state, "did not find that the Trump campaign, or anyone associated with it, conspired or coordinated with the Russian government". In fact, he quite clearly says, "cannot rule out the possibility".

 
Don't Noonan said:
It is in the introduction to volume 1.  It states "the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities."

So, with that said, Mueller being asked when did he conclude the above is a valid question.
Click to expand...
Do you see how what’s in the quotes here is different from what was in the quotes in your other post?

 
Don't Noonan said:
It is in the introduction to volume 1.  It states "the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities."

So, with that said, Mueller being asked when did he conclude the above is a valid question.
Click to expand...
You left out this line from the same page:

A statement that the investigation did not establish particular facts does not mean there was no evidence of those facts.

 
Don't Noonan said:
Mueller will be asked many tough questions.  This will backfire on the Dems.  Looking forward to it.
Click to expand...
This is a stupid question, not a tough question.  It will backfire on the Dems in the sense that Fox news and right wing radio guys will take things out of context, make really stupid extrapolations, and display a basic mis-understanding of reason and logic and their ditto-heads will lap it up. 

Trump's surrogates (like Sekulow)  will repeat whatever Trump think resonates, Fox news will publish it, and someone will post it here.

Rinse, repeat.

 
moleculo said:
This is a stupid question, not a tough question.  It will backfire on the Dems in the sense that Fox news and right wing radio guys will take things out of context, make really stupid extrapolations, and display a basic mis-understanding of reason and logic and their ditto-heads will lap it up. 

Trump's surrogates (like Sekulow)  will repeat whatever Trump think resonates, Fox news will publish it, and someone will post it here.

Rinse, repeat.
Click to expand...


Slapdash said:
Doubtful.  Fox will play the questions, not the answers.
Click to expand...
It will be very similar to this historic interview.

 
Gr00vus said:
It's really a big waste of time, isn't it?
Click to expand...
In the case of the poster in question, absolutely. 

But I've found that sometimes these links and rebuttals help alert  me to stuff I may have missed or forgotten about, as I have not read the entire report. So in that sense, these good people are performing a valuable service. 

But they sure as hell aren't changing any minds.

 
Bozeman Bruiser said:
So lawyer speak for Trump didn't collude with Russia but I am still going to post on a message board in which I am a moderator and hold significant influence over the audience that Trump "may" have colluded with Russia, despite the honest and brilliant Robert Mueller not being able to establish any collusion?

What would it take for you to accept the conclusion of the honest and brilliant Robert Mueller that there was no establishment of collusion (your words)?
Click to expand...
The administration not pleading the fifth, refusing to answer document requests, citing “absolute immunity,” telling witnesses not to cooperate, etc. Trump won’t answer questions because he says they’re just trying to catch him in a lie or misspeaking. Well don’t lie maybe? And with all the times he’s “mispoken” or “joked” about something it’s the right move for a defendent but this is the president, there is a higher standard. They sure look guilty to me. Got something that proves him innocent, link it, I’ll read it. The mueller report doesn’t do that. 

 
Bozeman Bruiser said:
So lawyer speak for Trump didn't collude with Russia but I am still going to post on a message board in which I am a moderator and hold significant influence over the audience that Trump "may" have colluded with Russia, despite the honest and brilliant Robert Mueller not being able to establish any collusion?

What would it take for you to accept the conclusion of the honest and brilliant Robert Mueller that there was no establishment of collusion (your words)?
Click to expand...
What would it take for you to admit that Mueller literally says "cannot rule out the possibility"?

 
timschochet said:
Good. Historically the most important testimony in hearings like these have come from staff questions. 

And it makes sense. There’s far less grandstanding and the questions have a continuity to them rather than a new topic being raised every few minutes. 
Click to expand...
This is also something that Barr would not agree to.

 
  • Thanks
Reactions: Ned
Amused to Death said:
Pretty sure they could completely rule me out with hard evidence.

I noticed you didn't respond to either of my replies to you last night. Where I copied and pasted directly from the report.
Click to expand...
pretty sure is not the same thing as 100% sure.  Therefore, my statement is correct.  See how this works?  Mueller and his liberal team intentionally phrased it that way to try and cast doubt on Trump.

 
That doesn't seem like a good line of questioning when Trump said 'I don't recall' to almost all written questions and didn't testify under oath.

 
Don't Noonan said:
pretty sure is not the same thing as 100% sure.  Therefore, my statement is correct.  See how this works?  Mueller and his liberal team intentionally phrased it that way to try and cast doubt on Trump.
Click to expand...
Or they phrased it that way because its factually and legally the correct way to phrase it based on the evidence.

Which is much more clear than just casting him and his team off as liberals.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
moleculo said:
When did you know that SID didn't steal your friends wallet?
Click to expand...
Glad you asked!  After 2 and 1/2 years of investigating this because my crazy friend was convinced he couldn't have possibly lost his wallet (cough cough election) on his own and finding zero proof that SID was in fact the culprit I logically concluded he was innocent.  I actually concluded SID was innocent within a few months of the investigation but in order to appease my troubled friend I extended the investigation a few pointless years.  

 
Don't Noonan said:
Glad you asked!  After 2 and 1/2 years of investigating this because my crazy friend was convinced he couldn't have possibly lost his wallet (cough cough election) on his own and finding zero proof that SID was in fact the culprit I logically concluded he was innocent.  I actually concluded SID was innocent within a few months of the investigation but in order to appease my troubled friend I extended the investigation a few pointless years.  
Click to expand...
And yet Mueller specifically says:

"A statement that the investigation did not establish particular facts does not mean there was no evidence of those facts." and "the Office cannot rule out the possibility that the unavailable information would shed additional light on (or cast in a new light) the events described in the report."

Neither of those statement rise to the level of "found no evidence".

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Amused to Death said:
And yet Mueller specifically says:

"A statement that the investigation did not establish particular facts does not mean there was no evidence of those facts." and "the Office cannot rule out the possibility that the unavailable information would shed additional light on (or cast in a new light) the events described in the report."

Neither of those statement rise to the level of "found no evidence".
Click to expand...
Found no "proof"

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

dozer
****Official DOJ Investigation into Trump, Fake Electors, Fraud, Etc.****
5 6 7
Replies
348
Views
11K
Sabertooth
Sabertooth
dozer
Ret. Lt. Gen Mike Flynn
2 3
Replies
104
Views
4K
Genxersrule
G
G
Mueller Investigation - Common Misconceptions (1-10)
Replies
0
Views
208
Guest
G

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 3 (members: 0, guests: 3)
Top