Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
whoknew

The Russia Investigation: Mueller - "Over the course of my career, I've seen a number of challenges to our democracy.The Russian govt's effort to interfere in our election is among the most serious."

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, ren hoek said:

Not really Russia related, but-

https://twitter.com/telesurenglish/status/1151144461738446848

Just want to point out that Glenn Greenwald is under fire from a fascist government in Brazil- who are using rank homophobia, threats of imprisonment, a retaliatory investigation, and refusing to provide security while he receives death threats- because he exposed corrupt practice in the Brazilian judiciary.  

Hopefully people who spent the past few years sliming him as a Russian agent and Trump sycophant, who are so quick to point out how much they care about the free press, recognize the courageous and important work he's doing out there. 

I actually posted on this in the wikileaks thread, would be glad to discuss it there at some point if you're interested. It's pretty convoluted.

Edited by SaintsInDome2006

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, supermike80 said:

Same here. I don't understand.  What is the goal?   There will be nothing new.  If congress wants to impeach him over what's in the report, just do it.  I don't see how having Mueller testify has any bearing on this at all.  If it's politics, which it might be..More media coverage to make Trump look criminal..I guess I get that.  That's the only explanation I can accept.

The Democrats don’t care, and like one of them admitted up thread, they are just looking my for a sound bite to continue this absurdity.  A spark to raise this from the ashes. 

I wouldn’t mind this thing to fire back up, because I’ve been consistent for 2 years this whole circus actually helps Trump. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, -fish- said:

this post is what happens when you record random words off of Fox News and transcribe them.

Lol.

Edited by BroncoFreak_2K3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, ren hoek said:

Not really Russia related, but-

https://twitter.com/telesurenglish/status/1151144461738446848

Just want to point out that Glenn Greenwald is under fire from a fascist government in Brazil- who are using rank homophobia, threats of imprisonment, a retaliatory investigation, and refusing to provide security while he receives death threats- because he exposed corrupt practice in the Brazilian judiciary.  

Hopefully people who spent the past few years sliming him as a Russian agent and Trump sycophant, who are so quick to point out how much they care about the free press, recognize the courageous and important work he's doing out there. 

Telesur is the Venezuela state run media and is no more reputable than Russia Today when it comes to its anti-democracy, pro-dictatorship agenda. I mean, it is definitely plausible that Glennwald is being threatened by Brazil for exposing corruption, but that does not tie into the second thought at all. It was the only the beginning of this year when Putin sent Russian mercenaries to guard Maduro from the threat of a coup, probably so they could keep looting the country in peace. Him being boosted by Telesur increases the chances he is a Russian agent/useful idiot, it does not decrease it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I don't know where most of y'all get your non-fake news, but the Meuller report confirmed almost everything reported in the MSM about the Trump campaign's contact with the Russians and their effort to swing the election.

The problem was, though there was plenty of evidence of collusion, we knew most of it already and it wasn't enough, in Mueller's mind, to prove conspiracy. Most likely due to the fact that the investigation was obstructed at every turn and which Mueller chronicled in painstaking detail in the second half of the report.

That he followed DOJ policy and didn't indict a sitting president doesn't say a thing one way or the other about the voluminous amount evidence he collected, just that he couldn't indict so he didn't. 

If you want to claim, as Barr did, that the report exonerates Trump, that simply proves your ignorance as to what it actually says and that Barr, Fox, et al were successful in playing you all for fools. Just like the Russians did before the election and continue to do to this day.

That's why McConnell feels confident he can brazenly block any and all efforts to protect the 2020 election and not suffer any repercussions: Trump and the Russians have you convinced that it is and was no big deal even though all the evidence says otherwise. 

There's no shame in admitting you were fooled. Hell, I was a Bernie guy (and can't stand Hillary) and I fell for it, too. But to continue to tow the Trumpian line after they've proven to be so profoundly untrustworthy says something about your character,  your intelligence, or both. 

That I've so severely overestimated my fellow Americans continues to be a source of sorrow and deep disappointment. If you find merriment in that, so be it. I don't know when caring about your country became something to be ridiculed, but it's undeniable we've reached that point. It's made me wonder, for the first time in my life, if our time as a great country, or even a country at all, is coming to an end. 

Edited by bananafish
Forgot an is
  • Like 8
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, huthut said:

Telesur is the Venezuela state run media and is no more reputable than Russia Today when it comes to its anti-democracy, pro-dictatorship agenda. I mean, it is definitely plausible that Glennwald is being threatened by Brazil for exposing corruption, but that does not tie into the second thought at all. It was the only the beginning of this year when Putin sent Russian mercenaries to guard Maduro from the threat of a coup, probably so they could keep looting the country in peace. Him being boosted by Telesur increases the chances he is a Russian agent/useful idiot, it does not decrease it. 

I don't like this "state run media" line.  You could say the same thing about PBS, RFE, VOA, tons and tons of others.  Taking money from a govt doesn't mean an outlet automatically publishes propaganda in favor of that govt.  Do you realize that all the facts in this video have already been verified by dozens of other outlets?  

Now that we know to account for any given bias an outlet might have, what do we make of this video short?  What part of it do you feel serves a "anti-democracy, pro-dictatorship" agenda?  Because to me it looks like they're going to bat for a journalist who is being threatened by an authoritarian regime.  The journalist exposed wrongdoing by the govt, and is now facing retribution from the govt he exposed.  It's the complete opposite of an "anti-democratic" "pro-dictatorship" agenda.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, huthut said:

It was the only the beginning of this year when Putin sent Russian mercenaries to guard Maduro from the threat of a coup, probably so they could keep looting the country in peace. Him being boosted by Telesur increases the chances he is a Russian agent/useful idiot, it does not decrease it. 

A couple things here- Venezuela is not a dictatorship.  They have their share of problems but they are no dictatorship.  The Maduro govt is the legitimate govt by any reasonable measure.  The Venezuelan govt is allowed to receive help from its allies in the event they feel threatened. In this case, it was in response to a regime change attempt that has been plotted for over a decade.  

Russia has actually made a lot of money from Venezuela's struggles; foreign countries are buying Russian oil now that Venezuelan markets have been effectively blacklisted by the western axis.  Is it unthinkable that Russia could prefer a peaceful arrangement with a country that it considers an ally, and would go to defend it from an illegal coup attempt that would almost certainly be a bloody disaster?  I think that's a more reasonable state of affairs than another country being overthrown for oil.  

This framing of the issue, where Putin is the omnipotent bad guy, while Trump and John Bolton's efforts to starve an entire country into submission become invisible, is problematic.  You understand that Putin is at odds with Trump on this, right?  The actions of the US and Russia in Venezuela discredit the Trump/Russia conspiracy theory.  If Trump was a "useful idiot," he wouldn't be attempting to overthrow the govt of one of Putin's allies.  You really have to abandon logic to keep believing in it.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, ren hoek said:

You understand that Putin is at odds with Trump on this, right?  The actions of the US and Russia in Venezuela discredit the Trump/Russia conspiracy theory.  If Trump was a "useful idiot," he wouldn't be attempting to overthrow the govt of one of Putin's allies.  You really have to abandon logic to keep believing in it.  

I'm not sure you and I have identical definitions of "idiot".  Or "useful".

I don't see the world in terms of black and white.  It's not all us vs them.  There are places where US and Russia's interests intersect, and there are other places where they do not.  Trump/Putin not seeing eye to eye WRT Venezuela really had nothing to do with Russia favoring Trump against Clinton in 2016.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, jonessed said:

They must have really twisted hard to get him to do it.  It’s a no-win situation.  I wouldn’t be surprised if he’s still trying to get out of it.

I don’t think this makes sense given that he has decided to grant more time for the hearing, not less.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, supermike80 said:

Same here. I don't understand.  What is the goal?   There will be nothing new.  If congress wants to impeach him over what's in the report, just do it.  I don't see how having Mueller testify has any bearing on this at all.  If it's politics, which it might be..More media coverage to make Trump look criminal..I guess I get that.  That's the only explanation I can accept.

If we are to believe our elected officials, there will be plenty new to them given they haven't read the report :shrug: 

I doubt there is much, if anything "new" to those who have done their job and read the report.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, The Commish said:

If we are to believe our elected officials, there will be plenty new to them given they haven't read the report :shrug: 

I doubt there is much, if anything "new" to those who have done their job and read the report.

Do you truly and honestly believe these congress people, if they have not read the report, are solely relying on Mueller testifying to get their information.  That's absurd.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, supermike80 said:

Do you truly and honestly believe these congress people, if they have not read the report, are solely relying on Mueller testifying to get their information.  That's absurd.

That's not even suggested in my post.  Simply put, I believe the people when they say they haven't read the report.  If they haven't, everything they "know" is second hand and all their "information" is second hand.  That should give everyone pause.  Personally, the biggest takeaway for me in this whole fiasco was the discovery that this country's Attorney General didn't take the time to read through the evidence the report was based on before making his claims.  That is 100% unacceptable to me and I can't believe he admitted that under oath.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, The Commish said:

That's not even suggested in my post.  Simply put, I believe the people when they say they haven't read the report.  If they haven't, everything they "know" is second hand and all their "information" is second hand.  That should give everyone pause.  Personally, the biggest takeaway for me in this whole fiasco was the discovery that this country's Attorney General didn't take the time to read through the evidence the report was based on before making his claims.  That is 100% unacceptable to me and I can't believe he admitted that under oath.

Ok...Then I dont know what your earlier post said.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, supermike80 said:

Ok...Then I dont know what your earlier post said.  

It said, that if we are to believe what these politicians have said, it will be the first time some of them are hearing the information in the report first hand from the author because they haven't taken the time to read it themselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, The Commish said:

It said, that if we are to believe what these politicians have said, it will be the first time some of them are hearing the information in the report first hand from the author because they haven't taken the time to read it themselves.

Ok..So you're saying they don't necessarily know what's int he report, they just need to have it read to them by Mueller?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, supermike80 said:

Ok..So you're saying they don't necessarily know what's int he report, they just need to have it read to them by Mueller?  

Apparently.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, supermike80 said:

Ok..So you're saying they don't necessarily know what's int he report, they just need to have it read to them by Mueller?  

No...I am saying (as the words I typed read) "it will be the first time some of them are hearing the information in the report first hand from the author because they haven't taken the time to read it themselves."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, The Commish said:

No...I am saying (as the words I typed read) "it will be the first time some of them are hearing the information in the report first hand from the author because they haven't taken the time to read it themselves."

So they are going to hear the report first hand, from Mueller, because they haven't read it.  And we need a hearing for this?  Cant we just have someone read the report?  Word for word?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, The Commish said:

No...I am saying (as the words I typed read) "it will be the first time some of them are hearing the information in the report first hand from the author because they haven't taken the time to read it themselves."

I think...This will be the first time anyone has heard the report first hand from the author.  And I'm not sure what your point is?  What's the value...what is the goal of bringing Mueller in?  Is there a goal?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, supermike80 said:

So they are going to hear the report first hand, from Mueller, because they haven't read it.  And we need a hearing for this?  Cant we just have someone read the report?  Word for word?

Apparently we do....that's on the politicians.  If they'd do their jobs and not require all the hand holding, we probably wouldn't need a hearing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, supermike80 said:

I think...This will be the first time anyone has heard the report first hand from the author.  And I'm not sure what your point is?  What's the value...what is the goal of bringing Mueller in?  Is there a goal?

I suspect "the goal" is different for each person in the room.  So, for example....the nonsense that is being parroted about full exoneration across the board....no collusion, no obstruction.  Hearing Mueller say "that's not what I said" means something.  There are countless incorrect talking points being parroted that Mueller can verbally refute.  There's value in that.

Now, here's my prediction on this whole thing.  I predict the GOP asks fewer questions about the report/investigation than they ask about Hillary, conspiracies, and "whatabouts".  I predict the Dems go for "clarification" more than anything.

To the bold....my point is, it is unfathomable to me that we have members of Congress so careless that they can't be bothered to read the report and have no problem admitting they are getting all their info on the subject second hand.  That is incredible to me.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, The Commish said:

I suspect "the goal" is different for each person in the room.  So, for example....the nonsense that is being parroted about full exoneration across the board....no collusion, no obstruction.  Hearing Mueller say "that's not what I said" means something.  There are countless incorrect talking points being parroted that Mueller can verbally refute.  There's value in that.

Now, here's my prediction on this whole thing.  I predict the GOP asks fewer questions about the report/investigation than they ask about Hillary, conspiracies, and "whatabouts".  I predict the Dems go for "clarification" more than anything.

To the bold....my point is, it is unfathomable to me that we have members of Congress so careless that they can't be bothered to read the report and have no problem admitting they are getting all their info on the subject second hand.  That is incredible to me.

Ok.  I understand your point now.  

Here is my prediction.  Mueller, every time he is asked a question, will say "refer to my report" Which is what he has said he will do.

 

  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, The Commish said:

I suspect "the goal" is different for each person in the room.  So, for example....the nonsense that is being parroted about full exoneration across the board....no collusion, no obstruction.  Hearing Mueller say "that's not what I said" means something.  There are countless incorrect talking points being parroted that Mueller can verbally refute.  There's value in that.

I am curious as to whether, politically, Meuller can get away with stating flatly "The investigation found both collusion and obstruction -- it just wasn't actionable."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, supermike80 said:

Ok.  I understand your point now.  

Here is my prediction.  Mueller, every time he is asked a question, will say "refer to my report" Which is what he has said he will do.

 

  

I will bet all the money you want (I'll find a way to get the funds no matter what amount you set) that this does not happen.  How much?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, The Commish said:

I will bet all the money you want (I'll find a way to get the funds no matter what amount you set) that this does not happen.  How much?

Ha.  Gentleman's bet is fine by me

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Doug B said:

I am curious as to whether, politically, Meuller can get away with stating flatly "The investigation found both collusion and obstruction -- it just wasn't actionable."

What do you mean? He doesn't hold a political office regardless of what some might think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, supermike80 said:

Ha.  Gentleman's bet is fine by me

I'll even go as far as to say, this is proven wrong on the first question he's asked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was nice to sleep in today but I WANT MUELLER TO TESTIFY. 

Also, Americans should get Wednesday off in addition to Saturday and Sunday. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, The Commish said:

To the bold....my point is, it is unfathomable to me that we have members of Congress so careless that they can't be bothered to read the report and have no problem admitting they are getting all their info on the subject second hand.  That is incredible to me.

After 2003 we knew some Congressman had voted for the Iraq War authorization and we knew some had voted against it, what was shocking was when we learned that some of them hadn't even read the intelligence estimate they were supposed to be informing themselves with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, SaintsInDome2006 said:

After 2003 we knew some Congressman had voted for the Iraq War authorization and we knew some had voted against it, what was shocking was when we learned that some of them hadn't even read the intelligence estimate they were supposed to be informing themselves with.

I just let him go.   When this bothers you, it bothers you.  It's impossible to argue feelings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, supermike80 said:

I just let him go.   When this bothers you, it bothers you.  It's impossible to argue feelings.

Him who? Commish? I think I'm agreeing with what I'm reading. IIRC the same claims were made post Iraq AUMF - staff read it, public reporting was enough, yadayada. No, I do not think that's good enough. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

After 2003 we knew some Congressman had voted for the Iraq War authorization and we knew some had voted against it, what was shocking was when we learned that some of them hadn't even read the intelligence estimate they were supposed to be informing themselves with.

I don't remember them being so brazzen as to admit it and wearing it like a badge of honor that they are today, but I wasn't paying as close attention to politics back then as I should have been.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, SaintsInDome2006 said:

Him who? Commish? I think I'm agreeing with what I'm reading. IIRC the same claims were made post Iraq AUMF - staff read it, public reporting was enough, yadayada. No, I do not think that's good enough. 

Right.   I agree too.  its troublesome to him.  I get it.  Can't arguer with something like that

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, The Commish said:

I don't remember them being so brazzen as to admit it and wearing it like a badge of honor that they are today, but I wasn't paying as close attention to politics back then as I should have been.

Oh I agree, this was more or less dragged out after the fact. Better reporting with journalists specifically asking Congressmen if they had read it like they are doing now would have gone a long way towards that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh.

Former Ecuadorian President Rafael Correa says his country was aware that WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange was interfering in the 2016 US presidential election from Ecuador's embassy in London (link: https://cnn.it/2JOQCMH) cnn.it/2JOQCMH

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, The Commish said:
30 minutes ago, supermike80 said:

Ha.  Gentleman's bet is fine by me

I'll even go as far as to say, this is proven wrong on the first question he's asked

“Good morning Mr Mueller, how are you doing today?”

”refer to my report”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Bucky86 said:

Oh.

Former Ecuadorian President Rafael Correa says his country was aware that WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange was interfering in the 2016 US presidential election from Ecuador's embassy in London (link: https://cnn.it/2JOQCMH) cnn.it/2JOQCMH

I think it has been well established you can't trust a President. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, dkp993 said:
31 minutes ago, The Commish said:
32 minutes ago, supermike80 said:

Ha.  Gentleman's bet is fine by me

I'll even go as far as to say, this is proven wrong on the first question he's asked

“Good morning Mr Mueller, how are you doing today?”

”refer to my report

"Moose out front should have told you."

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, dkp993 said:

“Good morning Mr Mueller, how are you doing today?”

”refer to my report”

Pretty much

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 minutes ago, The Commish said:

Pretty much

 

4 minutes ago, dkp993 said:

“Good morning Mr Mueller, how are you doing today?”

”refer to my report”

Doushy..but ok then commish would win. Would probably call that a win too.  

Edited by supermike80

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, supermike80 said:

 

Doushy..but ok then commish would win. Would probably call tat a win too.  

:confused: 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Bucky86 said:

Oh.

Former Ecuadorian President Rafael Correa says his country was aware that WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange was interfering in the 2016 US presidential election from Ecuador's embassy in London (link: https://cnn.it/2JOQCMH) cnn.it/2JOQCMH

Is that frowned upon?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, The Z Machine said:

Is that frowned upon?

 Not if it helps your guy win apparently 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

They're asking Mueller to testify because there's been so much deliberate misinformation bandied about (exonerates the President, no collusion), that many will be hearing what's actually in the report for the first time (hint: it does not exonerate the President and there was plenty of collusion).

Before Amash left the party, he gave a speech calling on other other Republicans to stand up to Trump using quotes directly from the report. Many in the audience were shocked that it said anything negative at all about the President, let alone provided stark evidence of his lies, total disregard for the law, and concrete efforts to obstruct the investigation. Clearly they had been led to believe the exact opposite. By whom I wonder?

Of course Amash was attacked mercilessly by "Republicans" and ultimately banished from the party. For quoting and drawing conclusions from the report. 

If nothing else, the report should put Trump's claims of "fake news" and "witchhunt" to bed once and for all, as well as convince any reader, Trump fan or no, that the man is virtually incapable of telling the truth. Instead you have legions of people cheering the report as if it proves he was right all along and contains evidence of a deep state conspiracy. People actually think Mueller's testimony will be GOOD for the President and are relishing the comeuppance Democrats will receive. If Mueller just sticks to the report it will be anything but. 

Like I said earlier, almost every piece of news by the MSM on Trump's ties to Russia and obstruction that he decried as fake news was proven absolutely correct by Mueller's report, a fact which I haven't heard a single one of his supporters address. In fact, you could even say that it provides a textbook on how good journalism is done. 

Instead of being lauded for holding the Administration accountable and upholding their duty as the fourth estate which is crucial to a functioning democracy, they've been demonized as "the enemy of the people". I mean, journalists have been murdered right here in our own country and people barely batted an eye, if not downright applauded. It's crazy. 

In this very thread you have posters ridiculing others for buying into the "Russia Hoax" and falling victim to Trump Derangement Syndrome, as if their concerns about our government are something to be ashamed of. 

While it should be absolutely crystal clear who the hoax is on and exactly who might qualify as deranged, not one Trump supporter will address this post, just like they didn't respond to my previous post about the Mueller report. The posts are 100% factually correct and I challenge anyone to show where I've stated anything that is remotely false or misleading.

"But Hillarys" or CNN's low ratings or quotes from Bill Barr don't count as anything but deflection and attempts to muddy the water, not that they won't try anyway. It's all they have left. 

I urge those that support the President to turn off Fox News for a moment and investigate what I've said. Prove me wrong. If I am it should be easy and I'll gladly eat my crow. I'd much rather do that than be forced to accept that much of the country simply isn't interested in facts anymore. 

If just one person takes what I've written to heart and cracks their mind open to the mere possibilty that Trump might not be the best thing for the country, then the time I spent writing this long-### post will have been well spent. I have my doubts but I also have hope. 

We can't give up on America. Not yet.

Edited by bananafish
Repeated a word
  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1
  • Love 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Assange didn't interfere in the 2016 election anymore than the Washington Post did.  He just published information.  "Election Interference."  Get a grip.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
5 minutes ago, dkp993 said:

You did see that it say “opinion” right?

For the 50th time. No.

Edited by Bucky86
  • Like 1
  • Laughing 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:lol: John F. Solomon is an American media executive and political commentator. He is currently executive vice president of digital video and an opinion contributor for The Hill.[1] He was formerly employed as an executive and editor-in-chief at The Washington Times.[2] He is known for biased reporting in favor of conservatives, and of repeatedly manufacturing faux scandals.[3][4][5]

  • Like 1
  • Thinking 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.