The Putin - Trump Controversy: Here to Stay - Links between Trump and Russia are being officially investigated by the FBI

[the_mango55]

From what I understand the report gave the (Trump appointed) Attorney General plenty of leeway as to whether the evidence constituted any crimes.

Barr is a stooge. Release the report.

[Dekhatres]

now heres's where the real collusion may be

[Katsumoto]

Proving that the Trump campaign actively conspired with Russia was always a bit of a stretch, and while there are still some questions the full report will hopefully touch on, I can accept Mueller's conclusions, even if they don't make sense to me at the moment. All those folks lied and Trump made all that noise because there was nothing to hide? Mueller even demurred when it came to obstruction of justice. Why would Trump risk that if there was nothing to cover up?

Which brings us to Barr. Imagine if Obama was being investigated for, say, tax evasion. He fires his attorney general and hires a new one who has said a President can't be guilty of tax evasion. After a thorough investigation that states that it does not exonerate the President, this AG then decides after two days of deliberation that Obama is not guilty of tax evasion. Would this not be a massive scandal? It's comical. Can't be guilty of breaking the law if you hire an AG that doesn't believe the law applies to you.

[tgoodenow]

@coughdrop -
specifically we need more information about the following:

Robert Hannigan, then-head of the GCHQ (the British analog to the NSA) intercepted a “stream of illicit communications” between “Trump’s team and Moscow” at some point prior to August 2016. Hannigan flew to the U.S. and briefed CIA director John Brennan about these communications. Brennan later testified this inspired the original FBI investigation.

https://taibbi.substack.com/p/russia...imes-a-million

We need to know what that "stream of illicit communications" refers to, who it was sent to, and who it was sent from.
Were there communications fake? Did the British fake them? Did Steele fake them?
Were they real? If they were real, why was no one indicted for collusion?

[Gaidin]

It seems it'd be hard to keep this report out of Congress's hands at large because it not only has the evidence for and against Trump's Obstruction Question, and precedent stands that not even the President can stand against a subpoena for that information so I doubt DoJ would either.

But The investigation at large was more about Russia and their actions. What should Congress at large want to do about that. If the Report is buried, what happens then?

[Gaidin]

Ed: That is to day, the Executive Branch can keep national security information and intelligence classified. But, this really isn't that. It's literally illegal to keep information that would embarrass executives or appointees under wraps just just avoid embarrassing them.

[alhoon]

OK, I think it would be a good time to close the thread as the hailed-as-the-Holy-Grail report is out and Trump haven't committed any crimes.
Sucks to be the democrats right now, realizing that much of their plans of how to move for the 2020 elections were torpedoed but there is still time to redraw their campaign and tactics focusing on other things about Trump.

Let's see if the Democrat politicians will be the bigger men\women in this, admit they were wrong, apologize for making a fuss, and move on to other issues that are real.
It is not that Trump's campaign was clean after all, just the PotUS himself. There's already enough to hit him for the "best people" and "drain the swamp" even if the Democrats were slammed in the face by the report of their hero, their idol, their messiah.

[Gaidin]

The dems haven't seen the report alhoon.

[Katsumoto]

Sanders declined to comment on whether Trump would invoke presidential privilege to withhold any information. But Jay Sekulow, one of Trump’s personal lawyers, said it “would be very inappropriate” to release the president’s written answers to the special counsel, saying they were confidential. Despite lengthy negotiations, Mueller never obtained an in-person interview with the president.

“As a lawyer, you don’t waive privileges and you don’t waive investigative detail absent either a court order or an agreement between the parties,” Sekulow told CNN in an interview, adding that Barr would make the final decision.

https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-us...KCN1R61LK?il=0

See, this is what I mean. Trump is innocent, has nothing to hide, no collusion. So why is it 'very inappropriate' to see the answers he gave to Mueller?

[Gaidin]

Because he's not going to answer outside a lawyer's perspective. Everybody making noise right now is more making noise from a political perspective. And that includes your 'has nothing to hide, no collusion so why is it inappropriate to see the answers' stuff. At some point likely Congress will just be able to get their hands on it just because that report is just their god damn business. It's mostly a question of whether the courts say they have to follow odd laws or the courts say those things should've otherwise been kept out of the report if they wanted them out of the light.

[swabian]

Alright then. He's guilty because of the wroth of people. And what now?

[JP226]

https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-us...KCN1R61LK?il=0

See, this is what I mean. Trump is innocent, has nothing to hide, no collusion. So why is it 'very inappropriate' to see the answers he gave to Mueller?

This is yore naivete. Most folks won't go into basic business discussions without Lawyers or MNDA's signed and copied, much less the President of the United States releasing private testimony to be twisted and turned by rabid liberals.

[JP226]

Here's a tough question, which day was worse for the DNC?

April 9th, 1865?

November 8th, 2016?

March 24th 2019?

[Aexodus]

@Katsumoto @Gaidin The President has the right to confidentiality, so the released report will have redacted sections such as private conversations that aren’t to be released to the public.

[Gaidin]

I personally consider April 9th, 1865 the best day for the DNC, especially after the RNC's execution of the Southern Strategy.

[Gaidin]

@Aexodus, the President doesn't get to keep documents like this under wraps. He gets to keep Executive Documents and National Security Information confidential. But evidence can be subpoenaed. Ask Nixon.

[Aexodus]

It would be petty to subpoena Muller

[B. W.]

The left spent $25 million dollars of taxpayer money, subjected the public to over 530,000 fake news articles, and untold hours of news commentary, all just to insure that Trump is re-elected in 2020.

Thanks lefties!

[Gaidin]

Aexodus, they wouldn't have to. He doesn't have the document anymore. I also love BW's inanity of the pricetag of the investigation. How Mueller handled his office is pretty much what let him run it without a leak and about all you got out of him was court documents.

[The spartan]

Let's see if the Democrat politicians will be the bigger men\women in this, admit they were wrong, apologize for making a fuss, and move on to other issues that are real.

You mean like with Benghazi? I see no reason why the Dems wouldn't be petty in this; it isn't like it will make Republicans like them and the Dem constituency wants blood. Republicans learned that petty is how you win elections years ago.