Mueller report delivered

[DoggyDaddy]

Ahhh well. I'm really not that curious to read a long report, but I would like to read a cogent summary of the investigation once it is released. If you are referring to me as a bitter clinger....you would be mistaken.

As to "obstruction"...it seems to me that every man has a right to do all that is within his power (short of bribery and murder) to protect his status as an individual citizen. I wouldn't cooperate with any of the hyenas.

That's what has puzzled me throughout this whole thing. Apparently paying someone to keep them from making you look bad is a no-no, but paying someone else to make your opponent look bad (ie. the Steele dossier) and getting illegal FISA warrants based on that is just hunky dory. Go figger...

 

[BugI02]

Ahhh well. I'm really not that curious to read a long report, but I would like to read a cogent summary of the investigation once it is released. If you are referring to me as a bitter clinger....you would be mistaken.

As to "obstruction"...it seems to me that every man has a right to do all that is within his power (short of bribery and murder) to protect his status as an individual citizen. I wouldn't cooperate with any of the hyenas.

Alas, 'twould not be the first time, nor likely the last

 

[KittySlayer]

After all, the finest lawyers in the land drafted it.

I thought the finest lawyers in the land were all on INGO. So what’s those DC lawyer’s usernames?

 

[Ingomike]

That's what has puzzled me throughout this whole thing. Apparently paying someone to keep them from making you look bad is a no-no, but paying someone else to make your opponent look bad (ie. the Steele dossier) and getting illegal FISA warrants based on that is just hunky dory. Go figger...

Paying someone to shut up and not make you look bad is not illegal for anyone candidate or not. Paying that someone with campaign funds is. If you have never paid someone in a similar situation before you are a candidate, may be a problem. John Edwards was not convicted when his major benefactor paid over $100,000 to his mistress and baby to disappear during the campaign.

The pursuit of Trump on this issue is another witch hunt. It has been established that Trump, like many famous and wealthy people, has had many non-disclosure agreements created on his behalf. These NDA's are not a part of any campaign if a normal part of the candidates life, as is the case here.

 

[Libertarian01]

That's what has puzzled me throughout this whole thing. Apparently paying someone to keep them from making you look bad is a no-no, but paying someone else to make your opponent look bad (ie. the Steele dossier) and getting illegal FISA warrants based on that is just hunky dory. Go figger...

Paying someone to shut up and not make you look bad is not illegal for anyone candidate or not. Paying that someone with campaign funds is. If you have never paid someone in a similar situation before you are a candidate, may be a problem. John Edwards was not convicted when his major benefactor paid over $100,000 to his mistress and baby to disappear during the campaign.

The pursuit of Trump on this issue is another witch hunt. It has been established that Trump, like many famous and wealthy people, has had many non-disclosure agreements created on his behalf. These NDA's are not a part of any campaign if a normal part of the candidates life, as is the case here.

Gentlemen,

I believe you are only half correct. It is entirely 100% legal to pay someone to be quiet about an embarrassing situation.

Where it becomes a bit squiffy is as a candidate. It is still 100% legal, HOWEVER, as it is going to affect your campaign numbers you must report it. It is the failure to report that is the problem, not the action itself.

But it becomes even more complicated than this. The law says the candidate does not have to report the expenditure even if it affects the campaign IF it is a standard operating procedure in your life. For example, say I own an RV and am making payments on it. I decide to run for Governor of Indiana and take my RV on the road. Even though it is helping my campaign I don't have to report the payments as it was a preexisting pattern of my life. However, if I buy a new RV to drive around for the campaign, never having owned one before, I need to report that as a campaign expenditure.

For Trump this becomes interesting. He HAS paid women to keep shut before, ergo it is a pattern of his life that is preexisting, even though each woman was different and thus unique. Had he never paid anyone before not reporting it would clearly be a campaign finance violation. But in his case he has paid people to keep shut before. So in his case I think there is a strong argument that a failure to report is not a violation.

Campaign finance laws are very complicated. I believe this is on purpose. It's like having a bunch of alcoholics write the rules limiting how much booze they can drink. The politicians need the money to run campaigns but are the ones writing the laws to clean themselves up. Not the best situation all around.

Regards,

Doug

 

[JeepHammer]

Where do you get that those 34 indictments were Trump’s “staff”?

If they were then there might be a case for collusion because a number of them were Russian individuals and 3 Russian entities that indictments were handed down for attempting to influence the election.

They had nothing to do with Trump.

OK, 31 of Trump's staff, 3 outside the staff, that's still 31 to 3.
Maybe you didn't understand the investigation, the Bill Clinton investigation started with White Water after 5 governmental agencies investigated previously, and Ken Star came up with a blue dress...
The investigation goes where it goes.

Want to "Drain The Swamp" this is how it happens, and my vote is for continuing.
Plenty more that need to be caught and punished...

 

[2A_Tom]

So Ken Star didn't seek indictments for process crimes that were unrelated to the investigation.

There were no accusations that he held them up over people's heads in order to get dirt on the President.

How many times have you heard in the last two years that this person will flip on the President to save himself? How many had to plead guilty, because their defense had bankrupted them?

I believe there is a difference.

Moral equivalency is mot a thing.

 

[Doug]

It all depends on the goals of the special council and, in some cases, the prosecutor.
Some want to find the truth; others want to win by destroying the accused at all costs.
I believe Mueller was the latter and that is why he threatened Trump associates with long jail sentences for crimes unrelated to the campaign which routinely go unpunished or result in a fine.
The Socialist-Media complex is very upset he couldn't find or manufacture evidence of collusion and STILL refuses to believe it didn't happen.

 

[two70]

Gentlemen,

I believe you are only half correct. It is entirely 100% legal to pay someone to be quiet about an embarrassing situation.

Where it becomes a bit squiffy is as a candidate. It is still 100% legal, HOWEVER, as it is going to affect your campaign numbers you must report it. It is the failure to report that is the problem, not the action itself.

But it becomes even more complicated than this. The law says the candidate does not have to report the expenditure even if it affects the campaign IF it is a standard operating procedure in your life. For example, say I own an RV and am making payments on it. I decide to run for Governor of Indiana and take my RV on the road. Even though it is helping my campaign I don't have to report the payments as it was a preexisting pattern of my life. However, if I buy a new RV to drive around for the campaign, never having owned one before, I need to report that as a campaign expenditure.

For Trump this becomes interesting. He HAS paid women to keep shut before, ergo it is a pattern of his life that is preexisting, even though each woman was different and thus unique. Had he never paid anyone before not reporting it would clearly be a campaign finance violation. But in his case he has paid people to keep shut before. So in his case I think there is a strong argument that a failure to report is not a violation.

Campaign finance laws are very complicated. I believe this is on purpose. It's like having a bunch of alcoholics write the rules limiting how much booze they can drink. The politicians need the money to run campaigns but are the ones writing the laws to clean themselves up. Not the best situation all around.

Regards,

Doug

Campaign finance laws are complicated but enforcement is very simple... though entirely dependent on who you are and which side you are on.

Obama had multiple violations of campaign fiance law including $1.3 million in donations above the allowed limit during the 2008 campaign. The result was a $375,000 fine. No investigation. No independent council. No criminal charges.

Dinesh D'souza exceeded donation limits by $20K and gets prosecuted with the threat of multiple years of jail time before accepting a plea deal for a $30K fine, 8 months in a "community confinement center" and 5 years probation.

 

[BugI02]

OK, 31 of Trump's staff, 3 outside the staff, that's still 31 to 3.
Maybe you didn't understand the investigation, the Bill Clinton investigation started with White Water after 5 governmental agencies investigated previously, and Ken Star came up with a blue dress...
The investigation goes where it goes.

Want to "Drain The Swamp" this is how it happens, and my vote is for continuing.
Plenty more that need to be caught and punished...

Not sure where you're getting your count from. I make it 26 Russians and 8 peripherally related to Trump - so 3/4 of those indicted were Russians who, as the report concludes, did not co-ordinate with Trump or his campaign

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...ecial-counsel-indictments-charges/3266050002/
Mueller's investigation is done. Here are the 34 people he indicted along the way

Here is a recap of who ended up in legal peril as a result of the special counsel's work:




Roger Stone


Stone, a longtime Trump associate and political consultant, was indicted in January on seven charges related to lying to investigators about efforts by top Trump campaign aides to learn about WikiLeaks plans to release emails that Russian operatives had stolen from the Clinton campaign and Democratic National Committee.


Michael Flynn


Trump’s former national security adviser pleaded guilty in December 2017 to lying to investigators about meetings with Russians during the presidential transition. He cooperated with Mueller under a plea agreement and still awaits sentencing.


Michael Cohen


Trump’s former personal lawyer and fixer pleaded guilty in November 2018 to lying to Congress about a proposed real-estate deal in Moscow. He also pleaded guilty in August 2018 to charges related to making hush money payments to two women who claimed to have had sex with Trump. Cohen was sentenced in December 2018 to three years in prison.


Paul Manafort


Trump’s former campaign chairman was convicted in August of tax and bank charges. He also pleaded guilty in September to conspiracy to commit money laundering, tax fraud and failing to register to represent foreign interests, and to obstruction of justice. Manafort was sentenced to 7.5 years in prison.




Rick Gates


Gates worked for Manafort before and during the campaign and also headed Trump’s inaugural committee. He pleaded guilty in February 2018 to conspiracy and lying to FBI agents and prosecutors. He cooperated with Mueller and awaits sentencing.


Konstantin Kilimnik


Kilimnik is an alleged Russian spy who worked with Manafort and Gates in Kiev. He was indicted in June 2018 on charges of conspiracy to obstruct justice.


George Papadopoulos


Papadopoulos, a foreign policy adviser to the Trump campaign, pleaded guilty in October 2017 to lying to FBI agents. He served 14 days in prison and was ordered to pay a $9,500 fine and complete 200 hours of community service.


Alex van der Zwaan


Dutch attorney Alex van der Zwaan pleaded guilty in February 2018 to lying to FBI agents about his work for Manafort and Gates. He served 30 days in prison and was fined $20,000.


Richard Pinedo


Pinedo pleaded guilty in February 2018 to identity fraud for trading in bank account numbers from stolen identities that were then used by the Russians. Pinedo was sentenced to six months in prison and ordered to complete 100 hours of community service.


12 Russian nationals tied to hacking


The twelve Russians were indicted in July 2018 on charges related to a conspiracy to hack Democratic computers with the goal of influencing the 2016 election. Charges included aggravated identity theft and money laundering.


Internet Research Agency


Thirteen Russian nationals and three entities, including the Internet Research Agency, were indicted in February 2018 with conspiracy to defraud the U.S. for interfering with the election. Three were charged with conspiracy to commit wire and bank fraud. Five were charged with aggravated identity theft.

ETA: Pinedo should probably be red, making it 27 to 7 for almost 4/5 Russians

 

[Ingomike]

Gentlemen,

I believe you are only half correct. It is entirely 100% legal to pay someone to be quiet about an embarrassing situation.

Where it becomes a bit squiffy is as a candidate. It is still 100% legal, HOWEVER, as it is going to affect your campaign numbers you must report it. It is the failure to report that is the problem, not the action itself.

But it becomes even more complicated than this. The law says the candidate does not have to report the expenditure even if it affects the campaign IF it is a standard operating procedure in your life. For example, say I own an RV and am making payments on it. I decide to run for Governor of Indiana and take my RV on the road. Even though it is helping my campaign I don't have to report the payments as it was a preexisting pattern of my life. However, if I buy a new RV to drive around for the campaign, never having owned one before, I need to report that as a campaign expenditure.

For Trump this becomes interesting. He HAS paid women to keep shut before, ergo it is a pattern of his life that is preexisting, even though each woman was different and thus unique. Had he never paid anyone before not reporting it would clearly be a campaign finance violation. But in his case he has paid people to keep shut before. So in his case I think there is a strong argument that a failure to report is not a violation.

Campaign finance laws are very complicated. I believe this is on purpose. It's like having a bunch of alcoholics write the rules limiting how much booze they can drink. The politicians need the money to run campaigns but are the ones writing the laws to clean themselves up. Not the best situation all around.

Regards,

Doug

Based on your reply I'm not half correct, I am completely in agreement with you and therefore completely correct...


One thing to keep in mind, like the Edwards case cited, when these campaign finance laws are tested in court they have a high failure or rejection rate.

 

[Libertarian01]

Campaign finance laws are complicated but enforcement is very simple... though entirely dependent on who you are and which side you are on.

Obama had multiple violations of campaign fiance law including $1.3 million in donations above the allowed limit during the 2008 campaign. The result was a $375,000 fine. No investigation. No independent council. No criminal charges.

Dinesh D'souza exceeded donation limits by $20K and gets prosecuted with the threat of multiple years of jail time before accepting a plea deal for a $30K fine, 8 months in a "community confinement center" and 5 years probation.

Are you suggesting that our criminal justice system is unfair?!?!? Shocked I am.

Of course this is nowhere near the only area of our criminal justice system that is biased and unfair. How many black defendants get more jail time for the same crime than white defendants? How many women get less jail time for the same offense than men? How many times are men given full custody during a divorce? Red Pill anyone?

You are correct and I am not arguing!

The big difference on many of these violations is not just who it is but how they defend it. I personally violated campaign laws when I ran for city council. My violation: I was three (3) days late (IIRC) on filing a form about a year after the campaign was over. I was stupid and didn't close down the committee. My response was to admit my wrongdoing and ask the Allen County Election Board for leniency. They were nice and said I didn't have to pay a $50 / day fine. My fault 100%. I was wrong and they were lenient. At least as a Libertarian it could not be blamed on my wealth of connections inside the system.

Based on your reply I'm not half correct, I am completely in agreement with you and therefore completely correct...


One thing to keep in mind, like the Edwards case cited, when these campaign finance laws are tested in court they have a high failure or rejection rate.

I can see how these are hard to get after. As the court has ruled in Citizens United Money = Speech. That makes it very hard to pass a Constitutional smell test.

Candidates doing things during an election need to be very, very careful on how to act and what to accept or deny from people.

At first I thought Trump was 100% in violation of the law. However, upon review of the exact wording as to "prior acts" I don't believe he was. Except - where exactly did the money come from? As a candidate you can spend any amount you want to. Bloomberg could spend $20 billion of his own money and it would be legal. However, it must be his own money! That means HIS, Michael Bloombergs bank account. If Trump paid Stormy Daniels to keep quiet out of his own pocket I believe he is skating very close to legal. However, if he paid her out of one of his companies then the limits would kick in, as a corporation is a separate person it is not legally his money, it is the corporations. In this case it would be crossing the limits line in my opinion.

No matter what, just like I tell my democratic friends, "Just five more years and we'll be rid of him "

Regards,

Doug

 

[IndyDave1776]

For what it's worth, I have found an offense of which Trump is absolutely guilty. The help in restaurants keeps getting worse and it's his fault. We now have enough better jobs that the good employees are finding better jobs. IMPEACH HIM FOR POOR TABLESERVICE!

 

[Phase2]

 

[jamil]

So, everyone who is saying the Mueller Report is going to guarantee a 2020 victory for Trump, think about this. The American electorate has a very short memory. Its something like 18 moths to the 2020 General Election. They will forget, The Democrat Anti-Trumpers and the leftist news media will bury this over the next 18 months. So the Mueller Report will be old news next year. Thje Dems and their lackeys will postulate other Trump outrages in the meantime. It's still going to be a battle for the Presidency in 2020.

If the economy is still great on election day, Trump will probably win. If not, it depends who is running against him.

 

[halfmileharry]

Anyone that thinks the Mueller report has accomplished anything doesn't understand the whining, temper tantrum, cry and scream antics of the liberals until they get their way.
There's no clearing President Trump from the thinking of the socialist thinking and attacks against this country. This just gives a stronger validity to the socialist movement. It's "OK" to be a socialist now as well as to tear out government and country to shreds.
Any publicity is good publicity and this group of parasites now has an accepted foothold and recognized agenda that's accepted as long as they go after the President.
Our President can handle all the insults and mud slinging. His behavior and name calling of others makes him a legitimate target. I'm sure he's been having these playground fights since childhood anyway.
I support our President. Don't think me to be against him. However... much of this turmoil is brought about by his own mouth. Just my 2 cents worth and I'm sure I'm going to get flamed for it.

 

[BugI02]

If the economy is still great on election day, Trump will probably win. If not, it depends who is running against him.

It is possible the Deathclock is ticking on the next recession (yield curve inversion), now I'll be interested to see who and what organizations suddenly advocate actions likely to forestall the recession as long as possible so it occurs in 2020 (especially if such advocacy is an abrupt change in previous positions: Looking at you @FedResv). Given the degree of conspiracy evident at all levels in Russiagate, I no longer think any level of postulated plotting to be beyond the pale

 

[jamil]

It is possible the Deathclock is ticking on the next recession (yield curve inversion), now I'll be interested to see who and what organizations suddenly advocate actions likely to forestall the recession as long as possible so it occurs in 2020 (especially if such advocacy is an abrupt change in previous positions: Looking at you @FedResv). Given the degree of conspiracy evident at all levels in Russiagate, I no longer think any level of postulated plotting to be beyond the pale

Given the apparent willingness in the upper levels of the FBI, I wouldn’t discount the possibility that the FED could try to manipulate things. They’re holding rates steady so far, which I think is expected given the financial circumstances. So I don’t see anything that would make me think they’re moving to manipulate things in anway disfavorable to Trump. It’s when they do something really unexpected that I’ll start wondering. Seems staus quo for now.

 

[BugI02]

Given that no Fed action has ever prevented a recession, and they have repeatedly asserted that their raison d'être is to 'fight inflation'; what would you think if they unexpectedly began lowering rates at their next meeting?

 

[2A_Tom]

Anyone that thinks the Mueller report has accomplished anything doesn't understand the whining, temper tantrum, cry and scream antics of the liberals until they get their way.
There's no clearing President Trump from the thinking of the socialist thinking and attacks against this country. This just gives a stronger validity to the socialist movement. It's "OK" to be a socialist now as well as to tear out government and country to shreds.
Any publicity is good publicity and this group of parasites now has an accepted foothold and recognized agenda that's accepted as long as they go after the President.
Our President can handle all the insults and mud slinging. His behavior and name calling of others makes him a legitimate target. I'm sure he's been having these playground fights since childhood anyway.
I support our President. Don't think me to be against him. However... much of this turmoil is brought about by his own mouth. Just my 2 cents worth and I'm sure I'm going to get flamed for it.

Just like George W. Bush's turmoil was brought om by his mild mannered civility and attempts to work across the aisle.

My point being that it does not matter how a Republican President acts the Libprogocrat politicians amd media will treat him with disdain and disrespect.

Every Democrat politician will be fawned over by the same.

Clinton, B.
Obama, B.
Obama, M.
Clinton, H.
Harris, K.
and
so
on
and
son
and
so
on
...