Kremlingate part 2

479 posts / 0 new
Last post
Mobo2000

The medialens article posted at 291 is quite good and deserves some excerpts.  I'm glad to see they are back publishing semi-regularly.   During the buildup to the Iraq War II I very much appreciated their insights and careful documenting.

http://www.medialens.org/index.php/alerts/alert-archive/2019/899-fake-ne...

"As we will discuss below, this should ring loud bells with British readers subjected to a very similar smear campaign targeting Jeremy Corbyn, who was also 'not supposed to win' the Labour Party election leadership.

In 2017, a Guardian leading article commented on Trump and Russia:

'The Guardian view of Trump's Russia links: a lot to go at.'

Another leader in 2017 went much further:

'Meanwhile the grenades he [Trump] lobs via Twitter or interview cloud the issue that still lies at the heart of his presidency: Russian meddling in the US election, and the possible collusion of his own campaign. All other iniquities pale beside this.'

Also in the Guardian in 2017, columnist Paul Mason highlighted 'Kremlin involvement in the Trump campaign' as the key reason 'Trump could be out of office within a year'.

The Telegraph agreed that the 'russiagate' claim 'is the cloud hanging over the entire presidency'.

The press has been filled with numerous similar examples.

Strongly echoing UK experience, Scahill adds:

'We have been subjected to more than two years of nonstop, fact-free assertions and wild theories masquerading as fact, masquerading as insightful analysis.'

A tsunami of 'fake news', in other words, supplied by the very same media who have supplied that other tsunami of warnings on the threat of 'fake news'.

The key word, and the title of Guardian journalist Luke Harding's best-selling book: 'Collusion'. The rest of the book title, unfortunately for Harding: 'How Russia Helped Trump Win the White House' (Guardian Faber Publishing; Main, 2017).

Harding was also lead author of a fake, front-page Guardian claim in November 2018 that Paul Manafort, Donald Trump's former campaign manager, had met Julian Assange three times in the Ecuadorian embassy in London."

josh
kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

LMAOROF

Since babble discourages fake news I presume that was satire.

NDPP

VIPS Fault Mueller Probe, Criticize Refusal to Interview Assange

https://consortiumnews.com/2019/04/16/vips-fault-mueller-probe-criticize...

"...There remains, however, a huge fly in the ointment. Barr's summary makes it clear that Mueller accepts as a given - an evidence-impoverished given - that the Russian government interfered on two tracks..."

 

CIA Deputy Director Lies To the President of the United States, Showing him Fake Photographs Alleged To Be From The British Government of Ducks and Children Poisoned By A Russian Spy Operation in Salisbury on March 4, 2018 - And the New York Times Refuses To Correct Its Record.

http://johnhelmer.net/cia-deputy-director-lies-to-the-president-of-the-u...

ICM par excellence! The New York Times: Lying Liars Lying Again and Again. 

josh

“The Russian government interfered in the 2016 presidential election in sweeping and systematic fashion.”

https://www.justice.gov/storage/report.pdf

Mobo2000

From Barr's press conference this morning:

"Consistent with long-standing Executive Branch practice, the decision whether to assert Executive privilege over any portion of the report rested with the President of the United States.  Because the White House voluntarily cooperated with the Special Counsel’s investigation, significant portions of the report contain material over which the President could have asserted privilege.  And he would have been well within his rights to do so.  Following my March 29th letter, the Office of the White House Counsel requested the opportunity to review the redacted version of the report in order to advise the President on the potential invocation of privilege, which is consistent with long-standing practice.  Following that review, the President confirmed that, in the interests of transparency and full disclosure to the American people, he would not assert privilege over the Special Counsel’s report.  Accordingly, the public report I am releasing today contains redactions only for the four categories that I previously outlined, and no material has been redacted based on executive privilege.

In addition, earlier this week, the President’s personal counsel requested and were given the opportunity to read a final version of the redacted report before it was publicly released.  That request was consistent with the practice followed under the Ethics in Government Act, which permitted individuals named in a report prepared by an Independent Counsel the opportunity to read the report before publication.  The President’s personal lawyers were not permitted to make, and did not request, any redactions."

Mobo:   Hopefully the above will reduce the upcoming pundit class chatter about unfair redactions and obstruction.  

I don't see how this sad squishy end to Russiagate is is anything but a disaster for the Democratic Party and non-Fox MSM in the US.   I think it's undeniable Trump will benefit, his chance to get re-elected is greatly increased, and his fake news narrative reinforced.   An entirely self made disaster.    I'm glad it's over, and hopefully US progressives within and outside the Democratic Party will return their focus to more important issues.

josh

You obviously haven't looked at the report in your effort to regurgitate Whitewash Barr's talking points.  Amd Muller farmed out 14 other investigations which are ongoing.

josh

The Mueller report clearly states that attempts by President Trump to obstruct the investigation failed because others refused to “carry out orders or accede to his requests.”

From the report: “Comey did not end the investigation of Flynn, which ultimately resulted in Flynn’s prosecution and conviction for lying to the FBI. McGahn did not tell the Acting Attorney General that the special counsel must be removed, but was instead prepared to resign over the President’s order. Lewandowski and Dearborn did not deliver the President ‘s message to Sessions that he should confine the Russia investigation to future election meddling only. And McGahn refused to recede from his recollections about events surrounding the President’s direction to have the special counsel removed, despite the President’s multiple demands that he do so.”

https://politicalwire.com/2019/04/18/trump-aides-refused-to-carry-out-his-orders/

josh

Special counsel Robert Mueller in his highly-anticipated report said his team identified "dozens" of U.S. political rallies organized on social media by the Internet Research Agency (IRA), a Russian troll farm that was later indicted for attempting to interfere with the 2016 presidential election.

The IRA, a Russian troll farm with close ties to Russian President Vladimir Putin and Russian intelligence agencies, organized pro-Trump and anti-Clinton rallies on U.S. soil for years, including events in New York, Florida and Pennsylvania.  

https://thehill.com/policy/technology/439532-mueller-identified-dozens-of-us-rallies-organized-by-russian-troll-farm

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

Mobo2000 wrote:

Mobo:   Hopefully the above will reduce the upcoming pundit class chatter about unfair redactions and obstruction.  

I don't see how this sad squishy end to Russiagate is is anything but a disaster for the Democratic Party and non-Fox MSM in the US.   I think it's undeniable Trump will benefit, his chance to get re-elected is greatly increased, and his fake news narrative reinforced.   An entirely self made disaster.    I'm glad it's over, and hopefully US progressives within and outside the Democratic Party will return their focus to more important issues.

In Barr, Trump has finally found his Roy Cohn, so desired for so long. Barr wrote an unsolicited 19 page memo to the DOJ last summer outlining why he was convinced that a President could not conceivably commit obstruction of justice, whatever the fact situation may be. Everything he says must be considered as politically motivated garbage. The redacted report has just been released, and already the highly misleading nature of Barr's version is being pointed out.

As for the political fallout, I think you may be mistaken. According to this article, a recent poll shows that 60% of Americans still belive that Trump obstructed justice. Also, "The poll shows that even with the Mueller probe complete, 53% say Congress should continue to investigate Trump's ties with Russia, while 45% say Congress should not. A similar percentage, 53%, say Congress should take steps to impeach Trump if he is found to have obstructed justice, even if he did not have inappropriate contacts with Russia."

Finally, the Democrats' successful midterm election strategy did not involve harping on Russia. It was all about other issues. Bernie Sanders and all of the other major Democratic presidential contenders have so far concentrated almost entirely on issues other than Russian collusion, or Trump's behaviour in general. I think you need to give some examples of important Democrats other than the likes of John Podesta and Neera Tanden going crazy over Russiagate in the last year.

josh

Because we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment, we did not draw ultimate conclusions about the President's conduct. The evidence we obtained about the President's actions and intent presents difficult issues that would need to be resolved if we were making a traditional prosecutorial judgment. At the same time, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice,we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, we are unable to reach that judgment. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.

Mobo2000

Michael:   Sure Barr is a Trump toady and puppet, but I've never seen Russiagate as having anything to do with a fair and impartial application of American law.   I'm speaking more to public perception.   The poll you linked says : "The poll shows 35% of Americans think that Trump did something illegal related to Russia — largely unchanged since the earlier poll. An additional 34% think he's done something unethical."      This would include lying about taxes or shady real estate deals.  But the MSM narrative was that Trump was a russia asset and/or traitor and on this, the report exonerates him and the press are walking it back or changing the subject.   Americans can't help but notice this.

Also bear in mind the Trump counteroffensive on this is just beginning.   I agree that the Dems have pivoted away from Russiagate in their campaigning, and that's telling, isn't it?   It shows its not a political winner.   I wished they realized that 2 years ago.   But Trump will not pivot away from it, he will launch investigations into the investigation, and he now has considerable power and moral authority to make changes at and issue new orders to the intelligence agencies.   BTW I consider it entirely gag inducing to write a sentence containing both "moral authority" and "Trump", but here we are.

Josh:   Would you put your own thoughts on the table a bit on this?   I'm not looking for a fight or to "rub it in", I'm  curious because I have agreed with and/or respected your take on many other issues here.   Is there a possible end senario that may still come out of this that we could take as a positive for progressives in the US?   Do you still think impeachment for obstruction of justice is remotely possible?   Or something else that would be an improvement?

josh

Impeachment should be a possibility.  If the Democrats in the House leadership weren't cowards.  At least they can start an investigation into whether there should be impeachment.  That took 6 months or so during Watergate.  But the meat in the coconut is the financial investigations.  Like Al Capone, that's what will get Trump in the end.  But that may not come to fruition until after the election.  So, politically, it may not matter.

Mobo2000

OK thanks.   I think that does remain a possibility, I suspect it's likelihood is dependent more on how successfully Trump advances the interests of American empire than what the investigations reveal.   If he remains in power for another term and is successful at it, I think all will be forgotten or forgiven.  

josh

Barr tried to suggest that Trump wasn’t charged with obstruction simply because the evidence wasn’t there. In reality, Mueller determined that obstruction was a call he'd never be able to make under DOJ guidelines.

https://t.co/XCVRxwk8ys

NDPP

"As predicted, Mueller employs suggested wording to suggest 'links' and 'ties' between Trump and Russia, while acknowledging there is no evidence to actually allege anything concrete."

https://twitter.com/aaronjmate/status/1118906950736121856

 

Sean in Ottawa

NDPP wrote:

"As predicted, Mueller employs suggested wording to suggest 'links' and 'ties' between Trump and Russia, while acknowledging there is no evidence to actually allege anything concrete."

https://twitter.com/aaronjmate/status/1118906950736121856

 

Do we have a link to Muller saying no evidence or just the interpretation? I heard he said not enough evidence to charge givent he reluctance to charge a President. I also heard that obstruction was something he felt that the elected officials would decide on.

Sean in Ottawa

josh wrote:

Impeachment should be a possibility.  If the Democrats in the House leadership weren't cowards.  At least they can start an investigation into whether there should be impeachment.  That took 6 months or so during Watergate.  But the meat in the coconut is the financial investigations.  Like Al Capone, that's what will get Trump in the end.  But that may not come to fruition until after the election.  So, politically, it may not matter.

I think that impeachment chances have been based on an understanding of the old saying that when you shoot at the king you have to kill or be killed.

An unsuccessful impeachment will actualy lead to increased chances of re-election.

On top of this, the Democrats know how they want to run against trump. Running against Pence or someone else means a whole new campaign.

Earlier on there was a better argument for impeachment. Now it is very poor -- it is risky and would take up significant time and the election is only a year and a half away.

Impeachment increases the chances that the Democrats will lose -- even if you believe that it may increase marginally chances that the Trump won't be the President and another Republican can take his place.

Why go there?

Pogo Pogo's picture

I would like to see an impeachment just to put as many facts into record as possible. The issue is the utter corruption throughout the government and the shady deals with numerous foreign powers (yes Russia, but not just Russia).  A proper impeachment hearing would throw everthing out for the country to see.  But that is not going to happen.  That is why you hear so much about Russia from official documents and so little about Saudi Arabia or Israel when the evidence against them in the public domain is also very damning.  For that reason I just don't know what is best.

josh

NDPP wrote:

"As predicted, Mueller employs suggested wording to suggest 'links' and 'ties' between Trump and Russia, while acknowledging there is no evidence to actually allege anything concrete."

https://twitter.com/aaronjmate/status/1118906950736121856

 

While concluding that the Russian government stole the emails and gave them to Wikileaks as part of a plan to defeat Clinton and elect Trump.

https://mobile.twitter.com/JYSexton/status/1118917585825935363

josh

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

josh wrote:

Impeachment should be a possibility.  If the Democrats in the House leadership weren't cowards.  At least they can start an investigation into whether there should be impeachment.  That took 6 months or so during Watergate.  But the meat in the coconut is the financial investigations.  Like Al Capone, that's what will get Trump in the end.  But that may not come to fruition until after the election.  So, politically, it may not matter.

I think that impeachment chances have been based on an understanding of the old saying that when you shoot at the king you have to kill or be killed.

An unsuccessful impeachment will actualy lead to increased chances of re-election.

On top of this, the Democrats know how they want to run against trump. Running against Pence or someone else means a whole new campaign.

Earlier on there was a better argument for impeachment. Now it is very poor -- it is risky and would take up significant time and the election is only a year and a half away.

Impeachment increases the chances that the Democrats will lose -- even if you believe that it may increase marginally chances that the Trump won't be the President and another Republican can take his place.

Why go there?

Might sound quaint and old fashioned, but to uphold the rule of law.  And to deter future presidents from engaging in attempts at obstruction of justice.  At least the House judiciary committee should spend time investigating whether to impeach.  From what I’ve seen, there is more than enough evidence in the report to move to impeach.  But it ultimately is a political decision.

As for, you only get one chance, that is true with respect to the particular facts at issue.  But if a whole new set of new facts, such as financial fraud and misfeasance are unearthed, there is no reason why the same president cannot be impeached again.

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

Here is an article on Slate which makes the case that the report was intentionally written as a roadmap for impeachment on the grounds of obstruction of justice. Lots of specific excerpts that seem pretty convincing, at least to me.

NDPP

"Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez renews call for Trump's impeachment after Mueller Report, cites Lindsey Graham's comments..."

https://t.co/G7OUtW27ix

 

"A large group of prominent voices chose to promote a Trump-Russia conspiracy theory and the belief that Mueller would prove it by ignoring the countervailing evidence. That choice led to humiliation. If they double-down with more dishonest denial, they're choosing more humiliation."

https://twitter.com/aaronjmate/status/1118956498284101632

Sean in Ottawa

josh wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

josh wrote:

Impeachment should be a possibility.  If the Democrats in the House leadership weren't cowards.  At least they can start an investigation into whether there should be impeachment.  That took 6 months or so during Watergate.  But the meat in the coconut is the financial investigations.  Like Al Capone, that's what will get Trump in the end.  But that may not come to fruition until after the election.  So, politically, it may not matter.

I think that impeachment chances have been based on an understanding of the old saying that when you shoot at the king you have to kill or be killed.

An unsuccessful impeachment will actualy lead to increased chances of re-election.

On top of this, the Democrats know how they want to run against trump. Running against Pence or someone else means a whole new campaign.

Earlier on there was a better argument for impeachment. Now it is very poor -- it is risky and would take up significant time and the election is only a year and a half away.

Impeachment increases the chances that the Democrats will lose -- even if you believe that it may increase marginally chances that the Trump won't be the President and another Republican can take his place.

Why go there?

Might sound quaint and old fashioned, but to uphold the rule of law.  And to deter future presidents from engaging in attempts at obstruction of justice.  At least the House judiciary committee should spend time investigating whether to impeach.  From what I’ve seen, there is more than enough evidence in the report to move to impeach.  But it ultimately is a political decision.

As for, you only get one chance, that is true with respect to the particular facts at issue.  But if a whole new set of new facts, such as financial fraud and misfeasance are unearthed, there is no reason why the same president cannot be impeached again.

This is not about a legal failure or anything like double jeapardy. This is a political process and if you run at it and fail you will make some believe he is an innocent victim of a political witchhunt and make it more likely that he will win.

In the present case, I think it is better just to assemble the best political response for the election. It is a bit late for an impeachment proceeding to make any sense. And that said its chances are poor given the Senate.

 

josh

NDPP wrote:

"Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez renews call for Trump's impeachment after Mueller Report, cites Lindsey Graham's comments..."

https://t.co/G7OUtW27ix

 

"A large group of prominent voices chose to promote a Trump-Russia conspiracy theory and the belief that Mueller would prove it by ignoring the countervailing evidence. That choice led to humiliation. If they double-down with more dishonest denial, they're choosing more humiliation."

https://twitter.com/aaronjmate/status/1118956498284101632

Humiliation?  What humiliation?  The Russian government got caught.

AOC right as usual.

josh

Michael Moriarity wrote:

Here is an article on Slate which makes the case that the report was intentionally written as a roadmap for impeachment on the grounds of obstruction of justice. Lots of specific excerpts that seem pretty convincing, at least to me.

https://theintercept.com/2019/04/18/dear-democrats-mueller-just-handed-you-a-roadmap-for-impeachment-follow-it/

NDPP

Given the crazy, outlandish claims which have been made without cease about this nonsense by Dems for the last several years, not proceeding to impeachment would seem to be  a huge and cowardly failure of nerve. If Trump is as hated as they maintain and so guilty of criminal acts I really don't think a Dem backdown from impeachment would do anything but hurt them  and further underline what a waste of time and a wild expensive goose-chase they have led the country on. They must move for impeachment or die.

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

Josh didn't provide a description of the Intercept piece he linked a couple of posts up, but it is a humdinger. Mehdi Hasan writes an open letter to House Democrats about why the report compels them to at least hold impeachment hearings over obstruction of justice. Read the whole thing, but this is the conclusion:

Mehdi Hasan wrote:

Your leader in the House, Speaker Nancy Pelosi, said last month — prior to the publication of the Mueller report — that she believes impeaching Trump is “just not worth it.” Sorry, what? If a president who has repeatedly and brazenly misled the American people; welcomed the interference of a foreign government in the U.S. election process while also trying to benefit from it; obstructed justice on multiple occasions in order to try and cover it all up; and also — lest we forget! — praised neo-Nazis as “very fine people,” is not “worth” impeaching, then … which president is? When will it ever be “worth” it?

And what, then, is the point of Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution? If you’re not willing to remove this president from office, in the wake of this damning report, you might as well remove the impeachment clause from the Constitution. If not Trump, who?

According to the special counsel’s report, Trump’s response to Mueller’s appointment in May 2017 was to exclaim, “Oh my God. This is terrible. This is the end of my Presidency. I’m fucked.”

Well, House Democrats, the truth is that he isn’t “fucked” until you do your job.

WWWTT

Backing down from impeaching Trump I suspect is a sign of something nasty coming on the horizon. 

The US economy is doing well for the time being and possibly well into 2021, but with Boeing, China trade war, India becoming as defiant as China, Indonesia and other emerging economies and US failure with government change in Venezuela, the US may very well be reassessing domestic policy/politics. 

I’m guessing the Russia gate idea was hatched around 2015-16? And since it was put into motion, a lot of US traditional allies are now having the worst ever relations with Washington.  If the democrats keep ripping at Trump over Russia gate, the US overall will lose huge amounts of credibility!

NDPP

WikiLeaks Calls For Unredacted Mueller Report

https://on.rt.com/9sl7

"WikiLeaks have always been confident that this investigation would vindicate our groundbreaking publishing of the 2016 materials, which it has. We disapprove of the large redactions which permit conspiracy theories to abound. Full transparency please!" The report did make clear that WikiLeaks' publishing supposedly hacked materials 'would not be criminal unless the publisher also participated' in the hacking conspiracy..."

NDPP

Mueller Report Takes 'Russian Meddling' For Granted, Offers No Actual Evidence (and vid)

https://on.rt.com/9slc

"Special counsel Robert Mueller's 'Russiagate' report has cleared Donald Trump of 'collusion' charges but maintains that Russia meddled in the 2016 US presidential election. Yet concrete evidence of that is nowhere to be seen. The report by Mueller and his team, made public on Thursday by the US Department of Justice, exonerates not just Trump but all Americans of any 'collusion' with Russia, 'obliterating' the Russiagate conspiracy theory, as journalist Glenn Greenwald put it..."

 

Stephen F Cohen: Will the Mueller Report Make the New Cold War Even Worse? (and vid)

https://www.thenation.com/article/will-the-mueller-report-make-the-new-c...

"How the long-anticipated report addresses or ignores Russiagate allegations will be vital for US-Russia relations..."

Clearly, with regard to 'Russiagate' there was no Trump-Russia 'collusion', despite the years long attempts to manufacture one into being. There is however Trump-Israel collusion. In spades. And for impeachment purposes Trump 'collusion' on actual evidence is far more easily demonstrable with 'Israelgate' than Russiagate. Yet this problem remains, grows worse and is undealt with because both Dems and Repugs are institutionally invested in it as beneficiaries. 

NorthReport

If the objective is getting Trump out of the White House, Nate Silver's drip, drip, drip suggestion/comments are worth a read in the following article:

Is The Mueller Report A BFD?

SlackChat-0409-4×3

Welcome to a special, extra edition of FiveThirtyEight’s weekly politics chat. The transcript below has been lightly edited.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/is-the-mueller-report-a-bfd/

bekayne

NDPP wrote:

 

Stephen F Cohen: Will the Mueller Report Make the New Cold War Even Worse? (and vid)

https://www.thenation.com/article/will-the-mueller-report-make-the-new-c...

"How the long-anticipated report addresses or ignores Russiagate allegations will be vital for US-Russia relations..."

Clearly, with regard to 'Russiagate' there was no Trump-Russia 'collusion', despite the years long attempts to manufacture one into being. There is however Trump-Israel collusion. In spades. And for impeachment purposes Trump 'collusion' on actual evidence is far more easily demonstrable with 'Israelgate' than Russiagate. Yet this problem remains, grows worse and is undealt with because both Dems and Repugs are institutionally invested in it as beneficiaries. 

Why post an article speculating about what will be in a document that's already been released?

NDPP

 The worthiness should be more than obvious despite its publication in advance of the redacted Mueller release. But of course to ascertain that you'll have to actually read/listen. As well insufficient knowledge of background and/or implications seems an important and obvious deficiency on this and other issues here. In any case here's something current by Glenn Greenwald well worth hearing...

 

Glenn Greenwald on Mueller Report (and vid)

https://twitter.com/democracynow/status/1119218360712081409

"Pulitzer-prize winning journalist Glenn Greenwald says the investigation by Robert Mueller fails to prove what much of the media claimed about the Trump campaign's connections to Russia."

josh

The “media,” which I guess means everything other than the right-wing media, was shown to be mostly correct on their reporting.  The Russian government did seek to defeat Clinton and elect Trump, and actively interfered in the election by hacking the Democrats, and engaging in “ratfucking” on the internet.  Trump campaign officials met with their representatives, and often had advanced knowledge of material that would be released.  And Trump actively sought to obstruct justice by seeking to interfere or shut down the investigation.

NorthReport

Shepard Smith Delivered the Best Burn I Heard All Day

But for Fox News, it was a controlled burn.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/04/shepard-smith-fox-news-mueller-report.html

NDPP

The Jimmy Dore Show

https://youtu.be/zS0AlApiWLs

"Mueller report drops. Aaron Mate explains. 'From the beginning, this was a shady investigation.'

NorthReport

Ha! Ha!

Sen. Mitt Romney said Friday that he was “sickened” by President Donald Trump’s actions described in special counsel Robert Mueller’s report.

In a statement, the Utah Republican said that while it was “good news” there was not enough evidence to bring criminal charges related to conspiring with Russia and that there was no conclusion of obstruction of justice, he blasted the White House and Trump campaign officials for their actions. The report, released Thursday, demonstrated repeated efforts by Trump to interfere with Mueller’s investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election.

“I am sickened at the extent and pervasiveness of dishonesty and misdirection by individuals in the highest office of the land, including the President,” Romney said. “I am also appalled that, among other things fellow citizens working in a campaign for president welcomed help from Russia.”

Romney blasted members of the Trump campaign for not informing law enforcement about Russia’s actions and went after former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort for “actively promoting Russian interests in the Ukraine."

“Reading the report is a sobering revelation of how far we have strayed from the aspirations and principles of the founders,” Romney said.

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/04/19/romney-sickened-mueller-report-1283543

NorthReport

The law firm is probably thanking its lucky stars to be away from Trump

Trump campaign punishes Don McGahn's law firm

'Why in the world would you want to put your enemy on the payroll?' said one adviser close to the White House.

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/04/19/trump-campaign-mcgahn-1283545

josh
bekayne

NorthReport wrote:

Ha! Ha!

Sen. Mitt Romney said Friday that he was “sickened” by President Donald Trump’s actions described in special counsel Robert Mueller’s report.

In a statement, the Utah Republican said that while it was “good news” there was not enough evidence to bring criminal charges related to conspiring with Russia and that there was no conclusion of obstruction of justice, he blasted the White House and Trump campaign officials for their actions. The report, released Thursday, demonstrated repeated efforts by Trump to interfere with Mueller’s investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election.

“I am sickened at the extent and pervasiveness of dishonesty and misdirection by individuals in the highest office of the land, including the President,” Romney said. “I am also appalled that, among other things fellow citizens working in a campaign for president welcomed help from Russia.”

Romney blasted members of the Trump campaign for not informing law enforcement about Russia’s actions and went after former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort for “actively promoting Russian interests in the Ukraine."

“Reading the report is a sobering revelation of how far we have strayed from the aspirations and principles of the founders,” Romney said.

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/04/19/romney-sickened-mueller-report-1283543

Did Mitt furrow his brow and have a stern look on his face when he said that?

NDPP

'Worst Moment For US Media Since Iraq Invasion' - Chris Hedges

https://youtu.be/ElAfzUl3oRQ

"Pulitzer prize-winner and host of 'On Contact', Chris Hedges joins Rick Sanchez to discuss the conclusion of the Mueller probe and media reaction to the long awaited Mueller Report."

 

Why Russiagate Will Never Go Away

https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/04/19/why-russiagate-will-never-go-away/

"Russiagate has been a godsend for those who profit from destruction. The biggest threat to free and fair elections in the US is American oligarchs followed by Israel..."

NDPP

Elizabeth Warren Calls For Impeachment Proceedings Against President Trump

https://t.co/YHGjCO8sks

"Senator Elizabeth Warren, who is running for president, is calling for lawmakers to start impeachment proceedings against President Trump..."

They'll never get him on Russiagate,  there's no 'there there.' Lots of other things to choose from though, especially the Kuchner -Israel stuff.

bekayne

NorthReport

After Mueller report, brother of Seth Rich calls on those who pushed conspiracy theory to 'take responsibility'

https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/19/media/seth-rich-mueller-report/

NDPP

On Contact: Russiagate & Mueller Report w/ Aaron Mate

https://youtu.be/odEnNBlOJdk

"Chris Hedges discusses with The Nation reporter Aaron Mate how despite the categorical statement in Robert Mueller's report that Donald Trump and his campaign did not collude with Russia, the conspiracy theories by the nation's mainstream media show little sign of diminishing."

josh

And the categorical statement in the Mueller report that the Russians stole and dissimenated the Democrats’ emails?

NDPP

Untrue and that's why the Dems wouldn't permit the FBI to examine their servers. You're so stupified by all that msm propaganda you consume that you seem to have forgotten that the NSA has absolutely everything on everything. The reason they didn't offer up anything in support is that there isn't anything chump. Trump can be brought down on a myriad of issues but 'Russiagate' isn't one of them. 

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

Remember the saying "Follow the money" from Watergate? CNN has a story about how Mueller did exactly that, showing that the same bitcoin wallets were used for various parts of the Russian ratfucking enterprise.

Donie O'Sullivan wrote:

Systems used in the hacking of the Democratic Party were paid for using Bitcoin, as were online hosting services that supported websites which published hacked materials and were used in the targeting of disinformation at American voters. The hacking and disinformation campaigns accounted for the vast majority of Russia's online efforts to influence the 2016 election.

All Bitcoin transactions are posted to an immutable public ledger, known as a blockchain. While the blockchain doesn't contain obvious identifying information about the person behind a transaction, once someone figures out a user is responsible for one transaction it can be possible to track their entire Bitcoin history.

Russian agents, including those from the GRU, Russia's military intelligence agency, had sought to, as the Mueller indictment of GRU agents last July outlined, "capitalize on the perceived anonymity of cryptocurrencies." But while Bitcoin allowed Russians to "avoid direct relationships with traditional financial institutions, allowing them to evade greater scrutiny of their identities and sources of funds," according to the same indictment, it wasn't enough to evade Mueller's investigation.

josh

NDPP wrote:

Untrue and that's why the Dems wouldn't permit the FBI to examine their servers. You're so stupified by all that msm propaganda you consume that you seem to have forgotten that the NSA has absolutely everything on everything. The reason they didn't offer up anything in support is that there isn't anything chump. Trump can be brought down on a myriad of issues but 'Russiagate' isn't one of them. 

You quote approvingly Mueller’s conclusion as to no collusion.  But call Mueller’s conclusion as to Russian hacking untrue.  If anyone’s following propaganda it’s you.  Not to mention being a hypocrite.

Pages