How heavy?B.A. Bearacus said:
The complete, heavily redacted report in PDF:
https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/18/politics/full-mueller-report-pdf/index.html
Mueller Report: THE EAGLE HAS LANDED
38,991 Views |
419 Replies |
Last: 4 yr ago by BearForce2
I was explaining to my child just now, on spring break.
She said, "when Obama was president, we never watched the news. Now, its on all the time."
I said, "yeah, that's because trump is a total freak! We haven't had anything like this since Nixon and watergate, 45 years ago. Think of this as a twice-a-century thing. Democracy is not static. It goes thru crises, and evolves.
If you go back 100 years before Nixon, what do we have? Another crisis, the civil war (which my grandmother's grandfather, whom she knew) fought in.
If you go back another 100 years, what do we have? The Revolution.
So, we should not be so surprised."
She said, "when Obama was president, we never watched the news. Now, its on all the time."
I said, "yeah, that's because trump is a total freak! We haven't had anything like this since Nixon and watergate, 45 years ago. Think of this as a twice-a-century thing. Democracy is not static. It goes thru crises, and evolves.
If you go back 100 years before Nixon, what do we have? Another crisis, the civil war (which my grandmother's grandfather, whom she knew) fought in.
If you go back another 100 years, what do we have? The Revolution.
So, we should not be so surprised."
I just switched over to FoxNews to see what is going on there.
They were laughing, now going to commercial. But first, they are playing another clip of Barr giving his mouthpiece campaign statement.
It felt like a winning Super Bowl postgame show for the hometown team.
Meanwhile, CNN hasn't gone to adverts yet, and keeps switching back and forth to folks finding new interesting portions of the report.
Stark difference in investigative reporting! I expected discussion at fox.
I'd better stick with fox to see if my small sample size was an anomaly.
They were laughing, now going to commercial. But first, they are playing another clip of Barr giving his mouthpiece campaign statement.
It felt like a winning Super Bowl postgame show for the hometown team.
Meanwhile, CNN hasn't gone to adverts yet, and keeps switching back and forth to folks finding new interesting portions of the report.
Stark difference in investigative reporting! I expected discussion at fox.
I'd better stick with fox to see if my small sample size was an anomaly.
Thx.
Jesus, just what I thought.
Jesus, just what I thought.
WikiLeaks publishing the emails reminds me of the movie the Post.
Fox reviewing quoting Barr claiming no American obstructed.
CNN had brought up earlier that that was a complete,lie on Barr's part because we've seen countless attempts by the president to subjugate this report, and then they reviewed those ways.
Stark difference.
Now fox goes to Laura ingraham who is reviewing the report. Let's see.... she calls it "pillow talk" amongst various people.
What we can conclude from this report is that the president was really mad! But he's well within his right to be mad!
"We have a president who was anxious to change Washington, and he knew that an investigation was going to halt that progress. I find it refreshing that he was upset!" (Laura Ingram)
By the way, it was LAUGHABLE when Barr tried to excuse Trump's obstruction attempts because he was so upset at the fact he was being criticized so heavily by the news. Give me a break, Barr. Every president is scrutinized!!
Now Laura is saying trump allowed his staff to be interviewed. Like McCann.
She says trump was TOO generous in giving the special counsel access.
CNN had brought up earlier that that was a complete,lie on Barr's part because we've seen countless attempts by the president to subjugate this report, and then they reviewed those ways.
Stark difference.
Now fox goes to Laura ingraham who is reviewing the report. Let's see.... she calls it "pillow talk" amongst various people.
What we can conclude from this report is that the president was really mad! But he's well within his right to be mad!
"We have a president who was anxious to change Washington, and he knew that an investigation was going to halt that progress. I find it refreshing that he was upset!" (Laura Ingram)
By the way, it was LAUGHABLE when Barr tried to excuse Trump's obstruction attempts because he was so upset at the fact he was being criticized so heavily by the news. Give me a break, Barr. Every president is scrutinized!!
Now Laura is saying trump allowed his staff to be interviewed. Like McCann.
She says trump was TOO generous in giving the special counsel access.
Next report on foxnews coverage:
Martha McCollum
Review of what happened this am. Nothing of substance.
Brett baeir
Reviewing the report.
He seems to be finding portions from the report which make the president et al look good.
Chris Wallace
"President owes a debt of gratitude to people around him who didn't do what he asked them to do. In part two of report, discussion of possibility of obstruction, and this is the first time where trump thinks he's a target and that upsets him. He calls mcgann and says mueller must be removed. Mcgann did not, but resigned! Two days later, president still so exercised, he asks lewindowsky to declare the investigation is unfair, and asks tomsay that the investigation be ONlY focused on "future" business, nothing from the past.
Rick deerborn was asked to do something that would have interfered."
Other guy: "you can huff and puff all you want, but if nothing happens, then you've done nothing wrong."
Wallace: "exactly!"
Interesting because CNN has been arguing the exact opposite: if you fail in your attempt to obstruct, doesn't matter, you are still guilty of intent to obstruct.
Martha McCollum
Review of what happened this am. Nothing of substance.
Brett baeir
Reviewing the report.
He seems to be finding portions from the report which make the president et al look good.
Chris Wallace
"President owes a debt of gratitude to people around him who didn't do what he asked them to do. In part two of report, discussion of possibility of obstruction, and this is the first time where trump thinks he's a target and that upsets him. He calls mcgann and says mueller must be removed. Mcgann did not, but resigned! Two days later, president still so exercised, he asks lewindowsky to declare the investigation is unfair, and asks tomsay that the investigation be ONlY focused on "future" business, nothing from the past.
Rick deerborn was asked to do something that would have interfered."
Other guy: "you can huff and puff all you want, but if nothing happens, then you've done nothing wrong."
Wallace: "exactly!"
Interesting because CNN has been arguing the exact opposite: if you fail in your attempt to obstruct, doesn't matter, you are still guilty of intent to obstruct.
Volume 2 of report is all about obstruction, and not much is redacted, fox says.
Fox goes to another commercial break.
Fox goes to another commercial break.
Regarding this section above:B.A. Bearacus said:
Ink toner stock just went up.
Barr said that it was okay for trump people to disseminate hacked material that was given to them. Not a crime.
The only crime would be who did the hacking, and those were Russians, and we know we will never be able to get them in a US Court.
Trump loves Wikileaks!
Seems that SHS blatantly lies. Who knew?
MSNBC:
Page 288: Press Sec. Sanders told the press after Comey's firing that the White House heard from "countless" FBI agents who said they had lost confidence in Comey.
"Sanders acknowledged to investigators that her comments were not founded on anything," the Mueller report states.
MSNBC:
Page 288: Press Sec. Sanders told the press after Comey's firing that the White House heard from "countless" FBI agents who said they had lost confidence in Comey.
"Sanders acknowledged to investigators that her comments were not founded on anything," the Mueller report states.
But there DOES seem to be conspiracy. It's mincing legalities and fudging definitions of collusion and who is Russian. This was illegal and unethical **** from day one.Anarchistbear said:
You should be happy. Trump didn't conspire with the Russians to interfere with the elections. T
blungld said:But there DOES seem to be conspiracy. It's mincing legalities and fudging definitions of collusion and who is Russian. This was illegal and unethical **** from day one.Anarchistbear said:
You should be happy. Trump didn't conspire with the Russians to interfere with the elections. T
And you know this how? By your prosecutorial expertise? Or your bias?
By Trump's team connections to Wiki which is conduit to Russia.Anarchistbear said:blungld said:But there DOES seem to be conspiracy. It's mincing legalities and fudging definitions of collusion and who is Russian. This was illegal and unethical **** from day one.Anarchistbear said:
You should be happy. Trump didn't conspire with the Russians to interfere with the elections. T
And you know this how? By your prosecutorial expertise? Or your bias?
To quid pro actions with sanctions and election interference.
By meetings and lies about those meetings with Russian agents and oligarchs.
By handing information to Russian agents.
By creating back channel communication with Russians.
By working on real estate deals here in US and in Russia with Russians and lying about it and running money for those deals through off shore money laundering accounts.
Trump was put in office by Russian action and team Trump knew and accepted and has paid back.
I know you think your cynicism is clinical and objective, but you have to work so hard to NOT call this collusion at this point.
blungld said:By Trump's team connections to Wiki which is conduit to Russia.Anarchistbear said:blungld said:But there DOES seem to be conspiracy. It's mincing legalities and fudging definitions of collusion and who is Russian. This was illegal and unethical **** from day one.Anarchistbear said:
You should be happy. Trump didn't conspire with the Russians to interfere with the elections. T
And you know this how? By your prosecutorial expertise? Or your bias?
To quid pro actions with sanctions and election interference.
By meetings and lies about those meetings with Russian agents and oligarchs.
By handing information to Russian agents.
By creating back channel communication with Russians.
Trump was put in office by Russian action and team Trump knew and accepted and has paid back.
You realized this has all been debunked, right?
Yeah, no. Are you reading the report? Let's grab one example. Page 28--how is that not collusion with IRA?Anarchistbear said:blungld said:By Trump's team connections to Wiki which is conduit to Russia.Anarchistbear said:blungld said:But there DOES seem to be conspiracy. It's mincing legalities and fudging definitions of collusion and who is Russian. This was illegal and unethical **** from day one.Anarchistbear said:
You should be happy. Trump didn't conspire with the Russians to interfere with the elections. T
And you know this how? By your prosecutorial expertise? Or your bias?
To quid pro actions with sanctions and election interference.
By meetings and lies about those meetings with Russian agents and oligarchs.
By handing information to Russian agents.
By creating back channel communication with Russians.
Trump was put in office by Russian action and team Trump knew and accepted and has paid back.
You realized this has all been debunked, right?
"This is the end of my Presidency" and "I'm ****ed," can only reasonably be interpreted as the reaction of an innocent man, right?
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
Weird that you give DT the benefit of the doubt, while you discount so many other political figures outright, even if what they say in a specific instance is valid, based on that fact that you feel they lied in the past or are part of some corrupt lineage. Your all over the place views don't seem to reflect any consistent, core set of beliefs and seem to just be contrarian for its own sake.Anarchistbear said:
And you know this how? By your prosecutorial expertise? Or your bias?
blungld said:Yeah, no. Are you reading the report? Let's grab one example. Page 28--how is that not collusion with IRA?Anarchistbear said:blungld said:By Trump's team connections to Wiki which is conduit to Russia.Anarchistbear said:blungld said:But there DOES seem to be conspiracy. It's mincing legalities and fudging definitions of collusion and who is Russian. This was illegal and unethical **** from day one.Anarchistbear said:
You should be happy. Trump didn't conspire with the Russians to interfere with the elections. T
And you know this how? By your prosecutorial expertise? Or your bias?
To quid pro actions with sanctions and election interference.
By meetings and lies about those meetings with Russian agents and oligarchs.
By handing information to Russian agents.
By creating back channel communication with Russians.
Trump was put in office by Russian action and team Trump knew and accepted and has paid back.
You realized this has all been debunked, right?
Where is Trump campaign mentioned on page 28?
"multiple members of the Trump campaign"Anarchistbear said:blungld said:Yeah, no. Are you reading the report? Let's grab one example. Page 28--how is that not collusion with IRA?Anarchistbear said:blungld said:By Trump's team connections to Wiki which is conduit to Russia.Anarchistbear said:blungld said:But there DOES seem to be conspiracy. It's mincing legalities and fudging definitions of collusion and who is Russian. This was illegal and unethical **** from day one.Anarchistbear said:
You should be happy. Trump didn't conspire with the Russians to interfere with the elections. T
And you know this how? By your prosecutorial expertise? Or your bias?
To quid pro actions with sanctions and election interference.
By meetings and lies about those meetings with Russian agents and oligarchs.
By handing information to Russian agents.
By creating back channel communication with Russians.
Trump was put in office by Russian action and team Trump knew and accepted and has paid back.
You realized this has all been debunked, right?
Where is Trump campaign mentioned on page 28?
I often disagree with your posts but thought you were reasonable, if not inflammatory and extreme. You are losing credibility with these recent posts.
The anti-intellectualism demonstrated by the vast majority of anarchists makes honest discourse a waste of time. Cynicism without thinking is basically crapping in your own mouth.
blungld said:"multiple members of the Trump campaign"Anarchistbear said:blungld said:Yeah, no. Are you reading the report? Let's grab one example. Page 28--how is that not collusion with IRA?Anarchistbear said:blungld said:By Trump's team connections to Wiki which is conduit to Russia.Anarchistbear said:blungld said:But there DOES seem to be conspiracy. It's mincing legalities and fudging definitions of collusion and who is Russian. This was illegal and unethical **** from day one.Anarchistbear said:
You should be happy. Trump didn't conspire with the Russians to interfere with the elections. T
And you know this how? By your prosecutorial expertise? Or your bias?
To quid pro actions with sanctions and election interference.
By meetings and lies about those meetings with Russian agents and oligarchs.
By handing information to Russian agents.
By creating back channel communication with Russians.
Trump was put in office by Russian action and team Trump knew and accepted and has paid back.
You realized this has all been debunked, right?
Where is Trump campaign mentioned on page 28?
I often disagree with your posts but thought you were reasonable, if not inflammatory and extreme. You are losing credibility with these recent posts.
Promoted tweets, is that the one? And I'm losing credibility. This from the guy with the sealed indictments coming down on Kushner and the super duper secret Mueller reports
The only conclusion I can think of is that Donald Trump honestly thought he colluded with the Russians.bearister said:
"This is the end of my Presidency" and "I'm ****ed," can only reasonably be interpreted as the reaction of an innocent man, right?
She will be able to get a job as a pundit on a partisan show. But she will never (should not) be able to run for office or earn money as a brand rep (commercials). I suppose she can charge for speeches, or write a book.B.A. Bearacus said:
Seems that SHS blatantly lies. Who knew?
MSNBC:
Page 288: Press Sec. Sanders told the press after Comey's firing that the White House heard from "countless" FBI agents who said they had lost confidence in Comey.
"Sanders acknowledged to investigators that her comments were not founded on anything," the Mueller report states.
It's amazing to me how some people can flat out lie.
I am simply unable to do that. Can't have a straight face.
Okay. We can be done. Your tone and where you are coming from is not about what is best for the country. I don't know what you are trying to win or be right about, but I'm not down with it.Anarchistbear said:blungld said:"multiple members of the Trump campaign"Anarchistbear said:blungld said:Yeah, no. Are you reading the report? Let's grab one example. Page 28--how is that not collusion with IRA?Anarchistbear said:blungld said:By Trump's team connections to Wiki which is conduit to Russia.Anarchistbear said:blungld said:But there DOES seem to be conspiracy. It's mincing legalities and fudging definitions of collusion and who is Russian. This was illegal and unethical **** from day one.Anarchistbear said:
You should be happy. Trump didn't conspire with the Russians to interfere with the elections. T
And you know this how? By your prosecutorial expertise? Or your bias?
To quid pro actions with sanctions and election interference.
By meetings and lies about those meetings with Russian agents and oligarchs.
By handing information to Russian agents.
By creating back channel communication with Russians.
Trump was put in office by Russian action and team Trump knew and accepted and has paid back.
You realized this has all been debunked, right?
Where is Trump campaign mentioned on page 28?
I often disagree with your posts but thought you were reasonable, if not inflammatory and extreme. You are losing credibility with these recent posts.
Promoted tweets, is that the one? And I'm losing credibility. This from the guy with the sealed indictments coming down on Kushner and the super duper secret Mueller reports
You said no mention of Trump campaign, there was. You said no evidence of colluding with Russians, I pointed to one. There are a lot more and way worse ones. That was just an early clear connection in the report. I haven't read the whole thing yet. You are being dishonest and aggressive.
I think the operating manual dictates that someone in the Administration must clarify that he was just joking.golden sloth said:The only conclusion I can think of is that Donald Trump honestly thought he colluded with the Russians.bearister said:
"This is the end of my Presidency" and "I'm ****ed," can only reasonably be interpreted as the reaction of an innocent man, right?
Period!blungld said:But there DOES seem to be conspiracy. It's mincing legalities and fudging definitions of collusion and who is Russian. This was illegal and unethical **** from day one.Anarchistbear said:
You should be happy. Trump didn't conspire with the Russians to interfere with the elections. T
It's so ****ing obvious!
This is an unethical man.
It's worse than, just as bad, as Clinton saying he didn't have sexual relations with that women, when he did allow her to blow him. Like, really?
Is that why people hate clinton? He is the same kind of liar?
Again, it's just shocking to me that people can lie like that.
Clinton got blown twice was it?
Trump has done a million things that are outrageous to me.
Another Bear said:
The anti-intellectualism demonstrated by the vast majority of anarchists makes honest discourse a waste of time. Cynicism without thinking is basically crapping in your own mouth.
You want an exercise in anti intellectualism, re-read all your posts about Russia.
lolololB.A. Bearacus said:I think the operating manual dictates that someone in the Administration must clarify that he was just joking.golden sloth said:The only conclusion I can think of is that Donald Trump honestly thought he colluded with the Russians.bearister said:
I"This is the end of my Presidency" and "I'm ****ed," can only reasonably be interpreted as the reaction of an innocent man, right?
blungld said:Okay. We can be done. Your tone and where you are coming from is not about what is best for the country. I don't know what you are trying to win or be right about, but I'm not down with it.Anarchistbear said:blungld said:"multiple members of the Trump campaign"Anarchistbear said:blungld said:Yeah, no. Are you reading the report? Let's grab one example. Page 28--how is that not collusion with IRA?Anarchistbear said:blungld said:By Trump's team connections to Wiki which is conduit to Russia.Anarchistbear said:blungld said:But there DOES seem to be conspiracy. It's mincing legalities and fudging definitions of collusion and who is Russian. This was illegal and unethical **** from day one.Anarchistbear said:
You should be happy. Trump didn't conspire with the Russians to interfere with the elections. T
And you know this how? By your prosecutorial expertise? Or your bias?
To quid pro actions with sanctions and election interference.
By meetings and lies about those meetings with Russian agents and oligarchs.
By handing information to Russian agents.
By creating back channel communication with Russians.
Trump was put in office by Russian action and team Trump knew and accepted and has paid back.
You realized this has all been debunked, right?
Where is Trump campaign mentioned on page 28?
I often disagree with your posts but thought you were reasonable, if not inflammatory and extreme. You are losing credibility with these recent posts.
Promoted tweets, is that the one? And I'm losing credibility. This from the guy with the sealed indictments coming down on Kushner and the super duper secret Mueller reports
You said no mention of Trump campaign, there was. You said no evidence of colluding with Russians, I pointed to one. There are a lot more and way worse ones. That was just an early clear connection in the report. I haven't read the whole thing yet. You are being dishonest and aggressive.
Indulge me. Cut and paste what your example is into this thread. What I saw had nothing to do with any evidence of a conspiracy. And I didn't see it on page 28
Don't quit now. You are winning.blungld said:Okay. We can be done. Your tone and where you are coming from is not about what is best for the country. I don't know what you are trying to win or be right about, but I'm not down with it.Anarchistbear said:blungld said:"multiple members of the Trump campaign"Anarchistbear said:blungld said:Yeah, no. Are you reading the report? Let's grab one example. Page 28--how is that not collusion with IRA?Anarchistbear said:blungld said:By Trump's team connections to Wiki which is conduit to Russia.Anarchistbear said:blungld said:But there DOES seem to be conspiracy. It's mincing legalities and fudging definitions of collusion and who is Russian. This was illegal and unethical **** from day one.Anarchistbear said:
You should be happy. Trump didn't conspire with the Russians to interfere with the elections. T
And you know this how? By your prosecutorial expertise? Or your bias?
To quid pro actions with sanctions and election interference.
By meetings and lies about those meetings with Russian agents and oligarchs.
By handing information to Russian agents.
By creating back channel communication with Russians.
Trump was put in office by Russian action and team Trump knew and accepted and has paid back.
You realized this has all been debunked, right?
Where is Trump campaign mentioned on page 28?
I often disagree with your posts but thought you were reasonable, if not inflammatory and extreme. You are losing credibility with these recent posts.
Promoted tweets, is that the one? And I'm losing credibility. This from the guy with the sealed indictments coming down on Kushner and the super duper secret Mueller reports
You said no mention of Trump campaign, there was. You said no evidence of colluding with Russians, I pointed to one. There are a lot more and way worse ones. That was just an early clear connection in the report. I haven't read the whole thing yet. You are being dishonest and aggressive.
Lol.
Featured Stories
See All
Friday Night Lights Week 4
by Bradley Connelly
Good Reviews from Bears' Weekend Visitors
by Jim McGill
Ultimate Insider Podcast E91: SDSU Review, Florida State Preview
by Mike Pawlawski
Bears Add Their 2nd 4 Star Guard in 2025 PG Semetri Carr
by Jim McGill
Cal Football Tuesday Weekly Presser - FSU Game Week
by Jim McGill