SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Pardon the brevity; submitted via my mobile phone.
[Update (20190418_203255 UTC) --martyb]
I was listening to the radio while running an errand when I heard the Mueller Report had been released. The above link was the first that came up when I did a search. I quickly posted the story using my mobile phone to get it to the community as quickly as possible. Here are additional sources as well as the MD5SUM and resultant file sizes from downloading each. The CNN file has a different size from the others. A quick inspection suggests that it contains searchable text (presumably through OCR (Optical Character Recognition) processing) whereas the others contain images of each of the pages in the report.
CNN (searchable): http://www.cnn.com/2019/04/18/politics/full-mueller-report-pdf/index.html provided a link to:
https://cdn.cnn.com/cnn/2019/images/04/18/mueller-report-searchable.pdf:
MD5: 614529b6979e7ec5323af8c2a286afdd
Size: 140,352,112 bytes
DOJ: https://www.justice.gov/storage/report.pdf:
MD5: ce5859e9b5d8b76aedd18dc296dcc1e6
Size: 145,509,756 bytes
NPR: https://www.npr.org/2019/04/18/708850903/read-the-full-mueller-report-with-redactions provided a link to:
https://media.npr.org/assets/news/2019/04/muellerreport.pdf
MD5: ce5859e9b5d8b76aedd18dc296dcc1e6
Size: 145,509,756 bytes
PBS: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/read-the-redacted-mueller-report provided a link to:
https://d3i6fh83elv35t.cloudfront.net/static/2019/04/Muellereport.pdf
MD5: ce5859e9b5d8b76aedd18dc296dcc1e6
Size: 145,509,756 bytes
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Revek on Thursday April 18 2019, @04:35PM (81 children)
If you are elected or are a government employee I don't think you're name is protected. Hopefully someone will leak the unedited document so we can get a look at everything trump fears. No one who is not guilty lashes out like that.
This page was generated by a Swarm of Roaming Elephants
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Revek on Thursday April 18 2019, @04:41PM
Now we know where to look when the unedited report surfaces. They did a good job of showing us where the dirt is.
This page was generated by a Swarm of Roaming Elephants
(Score: 1) by Sulla on Thursday April 18 2019, @04:42PM (5 children)
You should read the report. I have gone through about a quarter of it and its pretty easy to tell who is being talked about when there is redacted information. The majority of it is about Russian nationals, there is a bunch about Roger stone, looks like some about Manafort, some Wikileaks, and some Podesta.
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Thursday April 18 2019, @05:14PM (1 child)
Your sig:
If congress can lie to us, then why can't we lie to congress? Seems fair.
Or alternately, make it also illegal for congress to lie to us. It would require fewer jails to hold congress vs the rest of the population.
The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.
(Score: 1) by Sulla on Thursday April 18 2019, @05:51PM
Congratulations, you got the joke.
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: 3, Informative) by Thexalon on Thursday April 18 2019, @10:27PM (2 children)
On page 12 or so, there is an individual who was targeted for investigation whose name is redacted, but has either a 2-letter last name or a 2-letter suffix on their name. My guess is "Donald Trump Jr", which both fits the space and the issues under discussion. From that, it's reasonable to guess that the other redacted names nearby were "Ivanka Trump", "Eric Trump", and/or "Jared Kushner". Because the don's kin always has to be protected in a crime family.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 1) by Sulla on Thursday April 18 2019, @10:51PM (1 child)
Are you talking about the paragraph that begins;
So we got two blacked out names. Looks like standard Microsoft Word with Times New Roman and 12pt font gets you to correct line spacing for
If we, for the sake of argument, plug Donald J Trump Jr into the second box, we can test names that fit the first to see when the Jr overflows to the next line. Ivanka Trump, Jared Kushner, Eric Trump, Donald J Trump, don't push it to the next line when you put them in. Mean that the first redaction is probably two names. Jared + Ivanka are too long and push "Trump Jr" to the second line, not just the Jr. Same with Jared/Eric. Ivanka/Eric fits.
Would be kind of odd to break them up like that, but who knows. It is also interesting because that means that they are not being charged with anything collusion related, because personal privileged redactions are done to avoid people not being charged from being mentioned out of context. I am not sure those names are correct though. In word it puts the second line using those names as longer than the first line, which is not the case in the actual document.
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Thursday April 18 2019, @11:37PM
That was the paragraph I'm speculating about, yes. And I'll admit the evidence is thin for my guesses. Thank you for doing a more thorough investigation than I did.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 18 2019, @04:43PM (29 children)
Or you may finally realize that all that time and money expended was a futile partisan goose chase. Real politics have already moved on to Trump's tax returns (again).
(Score: 5, Interesting) by NotSanguine on Thursday April 18 2019, @04:59PM (26 children)
I disagree. Because of the investigation, the US government is now on record (with indictments, no less) that the Russians interfered in the 2016 election.
Regardless of the outcome of that election, it's clear that Putin and his gang are afraid of us and we need to make sure they stay the hell out of our electoral system.
What's more, having a full investigation allows us to move on and, hopefully (although I'm not holding my breath), get some real work done.
BTW, according to the Attorney General (AG), there were at least ten overt acts by Trump and/or his minions that, taken together, *could have been* construed as obstruction of justice. The Special Counsel chose not to opine as to whether or not they amounted to obstruction and the AG chose not to construe them that way. -- Just to clarify, that's not my opinion. That's (paraphrased, hear it from the AG himself [c-span.org]) what came out of the AG's mouth at his press conference this morning.
In any event, I'm sure we'll hear lots of posturing and bullshit on all sides. As far as I'm concerned, if you didn't actually read the report, your opinion doesn't count for much. If you don't back up your arguments with specific cites from the report, I will ignore you.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 4, Insightful) by jmorris on Thursday April 18 2019, @05:17PM (21 children)
Do you live in an effing cave? Russia meddling in an election is not news. They have meddled in every election since the Revolution. Hell, The Revolution was Harvard meddling in the Czar's internal affairs. They meddle in everyone else's elections as well. We meddle in everyone's elections. President Obama dispatched his entire campaign team to Israel to campaign for the opposition candidate against the sitting Prime Minister. This is not some wild Internet conspiracy theory, it was openly reported in all the major media of the time. CNN is carried worldwide and is an entirely a political organization attempting to influence public opinion and yes, elections. Everyone gets spun up over RT but what would one call the BBC or DW, VOA, etc other than state controlled broadcasters attempting to spread influence, including in foreign elections?
You are shocked, shocked! that there is gambling occurring in this casino!
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Sulla on Thursday April 18 2019, @05:20PM (2 children)
Identifying the various methods and avenues of attack that the Russians are using may not be news to people who are "in the know" but it is useful to the common person to know what types of things they see/read might be propaganda from a foreign power. Mueller report might have been cheaper in terms of hard cost than similar counter-intelligence operations.
Biggest loss here was two years of insanity over this thing that effectively killed the infrastructure bill.
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 18 2019, @05:32PM (1 child)
Infrastructure bill? Those are just trillion dollar pork barrels. And every road repair and construction project I've ever seen seems to takes months or years when the Chinese could do it in days or weeks. Let the infrastructure crumble, then fix it.
(Score: 3, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 18 2019, @05:36PM
With any luck, you'll be on a bridge when it crumbles, or on a train when the tracks fail.
It's just a little dream I have.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 18 2019, @07:00PM (17 children)
My my how the narrative shifts. It started with "haw haw Russia is a hoax" and now it is "of COURSE they meddled durrrr" like you didn't fight this reality tooth and nail. Pathetic how quickly you flip, party of cowards honestly.
Still fighting to pretend Trump isn't complicit though, more pathetic. "Gee, I had no idea my son was talking to people about helping my campaign and THAT is why I totally lied about all of it. I hire people to do my thinking for me, except when I want the credit, then it is all me."
So Sad Much Wow
(Score: 2, Informative) by Sulla on Thursday April 18 2019, @07:54PM (1 child)
Did you only watch CNN? Republicans have been agreeing that Russia was involved all along, and that they should be sanctioned for it, but that Trump was not involved. Sounds like their narrative was correct. Keep in mind that the Republican controlled house and senate were the ones to increase sanctions on Russia over the election meddling, and that the sanctions would not have gone through had it not been for Republican support.
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: 3, Informative) by DeathMonkey on Friday April 19 2019, @01:31AM
Senate Fails to Block Administration From Easing Russia Sanctions [wsj.com]
Who's in charge of the Senate right now?
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 18 2019, @10:07PM (14 children)
Far leftie here. I'm still at "Russia is a hoax," perhaps without the haw haw part. The amount of money Russia spends "meddling" is a rounding error compared to the amount of money spent domestically on elections. You're upset because Russia spent an insignificant amount of money on some ads--which according to interpretations of our First Amendment in cases like Citizens United... I honestly don't know how you'd stop them. If you're worried about Russian "meddling" then let's talk campaign finance reform.
There's that, and then I have a "whataboutism."
Whataboutism: If you want meddling, take a gander at the USA's attempted coup in Venezuela. Russia did not attempt to run a candidate in the USA at the last minute nobody had heard of and then use international pressure to get that nobody installed in the oval office. However, that's exactly what the USA did in Venezuela.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 18 2019, @10:42PM (13 children)
Russian nationals committed crimes in the US. The hacking (both successful and attemtped) are violations of CFAA [wikipedia.org]. Purchasing political ads violates US election law [fec.gov].
So no. It wasn't and isn't a hoax. Which is why more than a dozen Russian nationals were *indicted*.
You're talking out of your ass and it smells that way too.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 18 2019, @11:24PM (3 children)
Notice the Fox News talking points being repeated ad-nauseum like the unvarnished truth.
(Score: 0, Troll) by Runaway1956 on Friday April 19 2019, @02:31AM (1 child)
Notice the CNN talking points being repeated ad-nauseum like the unvarnished truth.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 19 2019, @03:00AM
You and GP hit the nail on the head even if unintentionally.
The elites have just about everybody here programmed like robots, some blue robots, some red robots, but both spewing talking points that do not represent their interests.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 19 2019, @02:57AM
We must see past this ridiculous Red vs. Blue bullshit the ruling class wants us to identify with. Neither of the capitalist parties represent the interests of the working class. Red vs. Blue is a game for the bourgeoisie. The working class must take action independent of the two party system and independent of the whargarbl in the MSM, which includes Faux News and Brietbarf alongside the usual neoliberal suspects.
Can't you see how unproductive this shouting match is? The elites have you shouting at each other about stuff that does not matter while they're laughing all the way to the bank with the wealth you produce.
Just turn the MSM off. Unplug from the matrix. If you're being financially squeezed and worrying about being reduced to living paycheck to paycheck, there's nothing either of the capitalist parties will do to help you. The elites steal the wealth we produce because we let them. For an idea what happens when we begin to stand up for ourselves against exploitation, we can learn from the Matamoros strikes and the Yellow Vests.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by shortscreen on Friday April 19 2019, @01:06AM (3 children)
It's a hoax in the same way that scare mongering about dihydrogen monoxide is. Yes, people can drown in pools. That doesn't mean that fooling your ignorant legislator into proposing a ban on dihydrogen monoxide is constructive.
Indicting Russians for some small scale mischief isn't going to do shit. If what they were doing actually mattered and the US authorities actually cared, then said authorities should have addressed it immediately instead of waiting until after the election ended and then wringing their hands for two years.
Even if the Russophobes and DNC conspiracy theorists could prove that alleged hacking wasn't made to look like the work of Russians by way of the CIA's tools, revealed in the vault 7 leak, which were designed for exactly that purpose, and even if they could prove that any of these goings on are actually connected to the Russian government, they can never prove that this threatened the integrity of the election. Because an election where one party rigs its primary and gets away with it, where the corporate media gives massive preferential coverage to particular candidate(s), and where 60% of poll respondants don't want either of the front runners, is an election without any integrity to begin with.
Russiagate was hoax from its conception, and always will be a hoax.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 19 2019, @01:19AM (2 children)
Crimes were committed. People were indicted. Full stop.
Whatever you may think, the rule of law applies.
If you don't believe in the rule of law, move to Somalia. Or maybe Duterte will give you a job.
Here in the US, laws matter. Don't like it? Too fucking bad.
(Score: 2) by shortscreen on Friday April 19 2019, @01:32AM (1 child)
1) I'm sure Russian citizens will gladly come to the US to turn themselves in because you said so.
2) BTW, when does your pal George W. Bush (or anybody else) get prosecuted for war crimes? Rule of law, and all that.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 19 2019, @01:54AM
We would just love Dubya and Co. to be held accountable, but that is a separate story.
Right here and now we actually have criminals being held somewhat accountable and enough political pressure to just maybe hold another rich asshole accountable. This is a very important step for the US to correct our missteps in letting Nixon off the hook. If we can't even hold a corrupt lying buffoon to the rule of law then we truly are lost. The jmorris' of the world will seize power and start stomping faces. Actually they've been doing that since pretty well for a while now, hence the non-stop slide we've been on.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday April 19 2019, @02:30AM (4 children)
And, you failed to address GP's points. Do you actually think it is LEGAL in all of the countries in the world for agents of the US to come in and fuck with their internal processes? Not once in my life have I ever seen a headline, such as "Venezuela invites US meddling in it's affairs, strikes down all laws forbidding foreign agents free reign within the country."
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 19 2019, @04:02AM (1 child)
I don't live in those other countries. as such, I have no say as to what's legal and what's not legal there.
If the citizens of those countries want to bring charges against Americans, I have no issue with that.
Just like with the Russian nationals we indicted, good luck putting them on trial.
Just to make sure I understand, you're essentially saying that "since Americans do stuff that's questionable around the world, that renders US law null and void." Does that about cover it.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday April 19 2019, @02:33PM
I'm saying a bunch of hypocrites look stupid, expecting the world to obey our laws, when we only respect the laws we want to respect.
(Score: 2) by hendrikboom on Saturday April 20 2019, @04:35AM (1 child)
The US invasion of Granada was invited by the Governor-General of Granada.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Saturday April 20 2019, @05:02AM
I don't count that as "meddling in internal affairs". We were asked to step in, and take some specific actions, and upon conclusion of those actions, we stepped back out.
Dayum - I looked at Wikipedia to refresh my memory. The invasion was just two days after the barracks in Beruit City was blown up. Not nostalgia, exactly, but I'm back in 1983 again. Beruit was more personal, Granada was more an academic exercise, to me.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday April 18 2019, @06:01PM (3 children)
Why? You reckon we're not experienced enough at hearing lies at election time to handle a minuscule amount of additional bullshit? Or are you afraid they're going to expose more truth?
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 19 2019, @01:21AM (2 children)
Irrelevant. Crimes were committed. I tell you what, why don't I jimmy the lock on the door to your house and rifle through all your shit.
Since you don't have anything worth stealing, I leave empty-handed.
I reckon that there's no issue. You didn't lose any property. I didn't even damage your door or your lock. By your logic, I didn't do anything illegal, right?
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday April 19 2019, @02:33AM (1 child)
And, by the law and order crowd's logic, jimmying that lock is a capital offense.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 19 2019, @05:51PM
lawl, worst I've heard is for Trump to be impeached. I'm sure someone somewhere on the internet has called for capital punishment but I suspect it is just Runaway's typical stupid hyperbole.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by NewNic on Thursday April 18 2019, @05:32PM
So people like Manafort should be allowed to continue breaking the law with impunity?
The investigation likely made a profit for the government: taking in more in fines than the investigation cost.
lib·er·tar·i·an·ism ˌlibərˈterēənizəm/ noun: Magical thinking that useful idiots mistake for serious political theory
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 18 2019, @09:11PM
This quote from Time Magazine [time.com] seems most apropos:
That seems to me to be a hell of a lot more than just "a futile partisan goose chase". Whether the President is actually impeached by Congress for any of this...well, only time will tell.
(Score: 1, Troll) by jmorris on Thursday April 18 2019, @04:44PM (41 children)
Eh? He just lost two years to what turned out to be a total hoax. Worse, it was projection since there WAS collusion with Russia, by the people who whipped up this hoax by colluding with Russia. Remember where the Steele "dossier" came from?
Everybody is all worked up because of Trump raging that Sessions allowing a special counsel would take years and prevent anything getting done? Well ask the question that matters: Was President Trump right? I await the attempt to mount an argument that he was wrong on that point.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 18 2019, @05:00PM (32 children)
37 indictments isn't nothing getting done.
(Score: 5, Funny) by DannyB on Thursday April 18 2019, @05:32PM (30 children)
So many indictments of people in Trump's orbit can only mean that those are all the bad guys and that Trump is totally pure and clean of any wrongdoing.
The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Sulla on Thursday April 18 2019, @05:53PM (5 children)
Because of how the campaign went Trump was unable to hire for his team people who were actually good (if anyone in Washington can be clean) and he was left with the dregs of the party in many cases. He fired tons of people when he was actually able to hire the cleaner looking party regulars, among them the dirty players who only got in in the first place because they wanted favors. As you can read in the report, favors were not given.
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: 5, Insightful) by DannyB on Thursday April 18 2019, @06:02PM (1 child)
Interesting.
I had formed the impression that the reason for the revolving door administration was because he couldn't find people who would be loyal enough. Willing to sacrifice their life, liberty or freedom to protect the dear leader.
But that's just my misinterpretation of events, I suppose.
The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Sulla on Thursday April 18 2019, @06:13PM
I presume that would also play a part, but what loyalties was Trump necessarily concerned about? Flynn and Manafort were fired, because it turns out their loyalty was not to Trump or America but was instead to foreign powers. The loyalty issue sort of disappeared when he was able to hire the classic party line advisors who while warmongers and corrupt in other ways, are loyal in so far as they would not undermine him to foreign powers. Past Republican presidents would heavily tap the National Review or the Weekly Standard, both pro-war neocon papers whose members would not work for Trump because he seemed too much a peacemaker when he was running and when he was transitioning. Trump hired a lot of generals, presumably because he likes generals, but because generals should be loyal to the US and to the office of the presidency.
He is an egotistical bastard yes, but I think he hired who he had to hire. When he fired the lobbyists at the beginning he hired neocons, and he found them distasteful (in some situations) and fired them as well. Mattis got canned because he kept postponing the withdrawal from Syria and some soldiers on the ground told him that they felt we were not trying to withdraw. When you have people undermining you on stuff, all the time, for their own personal gain (or company gain) you are going to develop loyalty issues especially if you are already inclined.
I re-examined my criticism of Obama and Hillary through this whole process and really thought about accusations and beliefs i held. When you are seeing something thats not there (the elephant in the room) and others are not seeing it, it is most likely the person seeing the elephant who is in the wrong. Delusions are additive and not subtractive. I think all of us, on all sides, fell into the right/left ratcheting of tensions that plays into the media's narrative to get clicks and views.
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: 1) by Sulla on Thursday April 18 2019, @06:26PM (2 children)
Please provide citation on why parent post is redundant
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 19 2019, @08:01AM
It's redundant because some democrat doesn't want to hear it.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Friday April 19 2019, @08:19AM
You are repeating yourself, Sulla. No wonder Marius kicked your butt.
(Score: 1, Redundant) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday April 18 2019, @06:04PM (22 children)
Indictments for obstruction with an investigation that turned up nothing much of note but said obstruction? I'm betting you're a fan of the FBI recruiting, indoctrinating, aiding, then charging terrorists then.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by DannyB on Thursday April 18 2019, @06:25PM (17 children)
Enough obstruction can prevent an investigation from turn up anything.
I'm not a fan of that particular FBI practice but fail to understand how it is relevant?
If there is an investigation, and it is bound to turn up nothing, they why try to obstruct it at all? In fact, the obstruction just makes the whole process take more time.
Renewing my driver license recently. Asked about have I ever refused a test for blood alcohol. No, of course not. I would have no reason to refuse. Assuming the test is accurate it will always be zero and thus evidence in my favor. Why would I obstruct such a test.
The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.
(Score: 1) by Sulla on Thursday April 18 2019, @06:29PM (14 children)
More than anything I am concerned that professing my innocence will be a crime. Had Mueller found collusion my opinion on obstruction would be significantly different. The left likes to portray Trump as angry and unhinged, which is in line with someone freaking out and yelling at people when he didn't do anything wrong (regarding specific accusation) and being drug through the mud. Unless the left is now deciding that he is actually a composed genius, I think few on the right would agree he is a composed genius. COVFEFE
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Thursday April 18 2019, @06:45PM (12 children)
There should never be presumption of guilt merely because innocence is claimed.
I think obstruction must be a crime in and of itself. Otherwise, unlimited obstruction can be used with impunity. (Of course even with punishment, unlimited obstruction can be used.)
The left likes to portray Trump as angry and unhinged -- because Trump gives off the impression all by himself. Merely pointing out the observation of how angry and unhinged he obviously is should not be considered some kind of conspiracy or deception.
When I see for myself, without anybody telling me, how angry and especially unhinged he obviously is, and he is president, I find it shocking, and even frightening that Republicans cannot see this for themselves.
The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.
(Score: 1) by Sulla on Thursday April 18 2019, @06:54PM (11 children)
If what you say is correct, its not obstruction. It's a pissed off innocent person venting. This is why Mueller had a hard time determining whether it was obstruction, and when Barr had to do his job and decided he decided (just like Comey did) to err on the side of no crime.
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 18 2019, @07:50PM (10 children)
Wrong. So very wrong.
Venting is one thing, firing someone for performing an investigation is a completely different thing. Offering pardons to people is bribery/coercion in an attempt at obstruction. Threatening witnesses and their families is obstruction.
It is time to give up on supporting Trump. Actually, it is well past time but this is becoming ridiculous levels of crazy to support him now.
(Score: 1) by Sulla on Thursday April 18 2019, @07:56PM (9 children)
[Citation Needed]
[Citation Needed]
[Citation Needed]
Burden of proof is on the accuser
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: 3, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 18 2019, @10:06PM (5 children)
1. Trump's mouth
2. Trump's mouth
3. Trump's mouth and twitter
Amazing how suddenly you conservatives are ALL ABOUT citations, but with Clinton's Emails and Benghazi OMGOMGOMG guilty all the way and won't even accept the investigative reports. Here we have Trump's investigation saying he is NOT exonerated, a metric shit-ton of evidence paired with criminal convictions and the special counsel saying that the convicted lied to hamper the investigation and a punting to congress / DOJ for actual indictments.
He IS guilty of emoluments violations, foreign bribes "laundered" through his hotels, campaign finance violations and obstruction of justice. Whether he can be pinned for his traitorous collusion with foreign powers is almost a non-issue at this point since it is one of AT LEAST five easily verified crimes.
There is no question about whether Trump is a criminal, just a question about how much corruption we are willing to tolerate. You are lied to daily, your chosen representatives are displaying the worst traits possible and making their partisan hackery so blindingly obvious. It is astounding the type of behavior you accept from him, but the answer is conservatives overall are so deluded about reality from Fox News propaganda that they think the bad things he does are secretly good things.
(Score: 1) by Sulla on Thursday April 18 2019, @10:53PM (2 children)
Whataboutism isn't a citation
[Citation Needed]
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 19 2019, @01:56AM (1 child)
There was no whataboutism, just pointing out your hypocrisy. Odd you would ask for a citation of your own statement :P
If you are too lazy to investigate Trump's own videos and tweets that is on you. I guess Fox News doesn't play those ones huh?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 19 2019, @04:10AM
Lol Trump's rallies are now and have always been conservative comedy shows. If you can't see that you are more deleted than trump
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Friday April 19 2019, @01:37AM
Just don't actually read them! They don't like that, apparently...
(Score: 1, Troll) by Runaway1956 on Friday April 19 2019, @02:39AM
And, of course, lefties don't pick and choose which reports they want to believe. A report that makes Bush or Trump look bad is better than Gospel. A report that makes Obama or Hillary look bad is the work of Satan.
Pot, meet Kettle.
(Score: 2) by deimtee on Friday April 19 2019, @08:21AM (2 children)
You will never get citations for :
- Trumps racist tweets
- Offering pardons as bribery
- Threatening US citizens.*
- pretty much any other claim about horrible things the big orange clown says.
I've asked several times and all you get is links to people saying he said those things. Or links to people saying other people saying he said those things. You will never get a primary source, and I've reluctantly come to the conclusion there isn't one. Pointing that out will get you modded troll or redundant.
*outside the scope of his job. Threatening people is pretty much part of his job.
If you cough while drinking cheap red wine it really cleans out your sinuses.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 19 2019, @04:13PM (1 child)
Trump: they're rapists, murderers, very bad people. His addition of "some good people" was only to avoid heat for an obviously racist statrment. Muslim ban. Fuck you and your stupidity.
He dangled pardons multiple times, told people to do illegal things and he'd pay their lawyer fees.
He threatened Cohen's father (in law?) with investigation, he has committed stochastic terrorism many times, he frequently calls liberals evil and falsely accuses people, then he makes vague suggestions for his supporters to commit violence.
I'm tired of idiots like you who ignore reality and then lie to push your pro-Trump agenda.
(Score: 2) by deimtee on Friday April 19 2019, @09:31PM
Yet you and plenty of other AC's can tirelessly repeat that you are tired of providing proof without ever actually doing so. Trump's entire tweet history is online. It would have been quicker to provide a link to a racist tweet than to write out that post. Why don't you do that?
If you cough while drinking cheap red wine it really cleans out your sinuses.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 19 2019, @06:57PM
At least here in the US, you have the right to remain silent [wikipedia.org].
What's more, obstruction requires overt acts [house.gov], including (18 USC 73, 1505):
Which, in this case, boils down to *lying*, either under oath or in writing, or soliciting others to do so. If you protest your innocence and are, in fact, innocent, that's not a lie, is it?
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday April 18 2019, @10:50PM
Dishonest people do it by knee-jerk. All politicos are dishonest. It doesn't however follow that they actually did anything wrong that's currently being investigated.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 20 2019, @05:57AM
> have I ever refused a test for blood alcohol. No, of course not. I would have no reason to refuse. Assuming the test is accurate it will always be zero and thus evidence in my favor. Why would I obstruct such a test.
How about religious reasons? For some, blood is sacred, and for an adult even accepting a transfusion to stay alive is courting eternal damnation.
How about because sensors are often wrong? Search for the calibration error cases; there was at least one well publicized jurisdiction where years of results were thrown out because badly calibrated breathalizers could blow over limit from a completely sober blower.
How about because the imposition of such tests has in the past been used as a tool of systemic oppression? Why the fuck should I lose fifteen minutes of my day for a stop-and-check while white dudes stroll past, rubbernecking?
How about because some people faint at the idea of their blood being drawn so there's medical harm to them.
How about if I were MDC, maybe interacting with the police is best avoided for the overall social good anyways, and there are others, with PTSD or schizoaffective or whatever, with completely valid reasons for being uncomfortable around authority.
Your failure to (use your imagination or to literally) see how mandatory testing without evidence has a negative impact on some persons being tested is your failure and like a person who, in the atrium at a concert, professes their favorite song is "chopsticks," you look really stupid for it.
C'mon. This is soylent. Write and talk like it's to a wiser, older mentor. Don't wave your failings around as if they prove anything but your ability to fail.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 18 2019, @07:14PM (3 children)
"nothing much of note"
Damn you're fucked in the head. The report does everything but indict Trump for collusion, and EVEN IF he gets cleared for that you want to forgive the obstruction because why? Because Trump told you it was a traitorous coup attempt and he was so innocent that he needed to obstruct justice. Also pay no mind to the multiple criminal indictments of his closest advisers, his clear violation of the emoluments clause AKA bribery, and his illegal use of campaign finances for hush money.
You're so fucking dumb.
(Score: 1) by Sulla on Thursday April 18 2019, @07:59PM
You have the report in front of you, perhaps you should do some work instead of just parroting talking points
[Citation Needed]
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday April 18 2019, @10:54PM (1 child)
Obstruction that would not have happened if there had been no investigation to obstruct? One that turns up nothing much on Americans except obstruction? You can't see why I'd have a problem with that?
Oh? Did I miss the bit where he was accused, indicted, tried, and/or convicted for those?
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 18 2019, @11:38PM
Misplaced your eyeballs again huh? Or possibly still just a missing brain issue. Get an MRI, they can probably direct you to the correct specialist.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 18 2019, @07:58PM
Foo Barr
(Score: 5, Informative) by DeathMonkey on Thursday April 18 2019, @05:51PM
Hundreds of indictments, 37 individuals/organizations.
Seven individuals convicted of federal crimes.
And, while Mueller was investigating he found evidence of crimes outside of his narrow scope that he referrer to federal prosescutors.
Enough evidence to start nine other investigations. [voanews.com]
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 18 2019, @05:09PM (6 children)
Reminds me, is there any way to auto-mod every post by jmorris as troll?
(Score: 2, Informative) by Sulla on Thursday April 18 2019, @05:22PM
You need to be logged in, but if you are you can set someone as a foe
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: 3, Informative) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday April 18 2019, @06:05PM (3 children)
If you want to get your moderations for the day all undone, sure. More than four a day to a single person and that's exactly what happens.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Thursday April 18 2019, @07:50PM (1 child)
But how often does jmorris post four times in a single day? Might be worth a shot to automate.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday April 18 2019, @10:56PM
Go for it if you like. It'd only take a moment to reverse per person doing so and it'll be programatically impossible whenever I get time to work on the site again. Probably after the summer but no promises.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by deimtee on Friday April 19 2019, @08:23AM
Does that apply to up mods too?
There's probably been times where someone made more than four posts that made good points in a day. I pretty sure there's times I would have come close to that, ie. quiet day, long discussion with few mods, and I usually don't check the nick before I mod a post.
If you cough while drinking cheap red wine it really cleans out your sinuses.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 18 2019, @09:56PM
Wouldn't that be Russian to judgement?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 18 2019, @05:36PM
You sir are a liar.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by RandomFactor on Thursday April 18 2019, @08:01PM (1 child)
I would fully expect Trump if falsely accused to be righteously pissed and tell everyone about it. Similarly if he was justly accused I would expect pretty much the same behavior.
В «Правде» нет известий, в «Известиях» нет правды
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 19 2019, @02:02AM
Shows what you know, that trollish fuck would roll around gleefully if he was innocent. He would be playing the crowd, laughing it up, mocking the hell out of his accusers for being idiots that have nothing.
Now if he was guilty, no need to ponder, we can see what that looks like.