Who Meddled more Putin or Trump? The Collusion Thread visits Venezuela
paulsurovell said:
Mueller used a huge of amount of resources and time prosecuting Paul Manafort for matters that had nothing to do with the 2016 election. Parenthetically, Mueller failed to report that Manafort sought to move the Ukraine government toward the EU, away from Putin. And Mueller failed to report that Manafort's associate Kilimnik was an informant for the US State Department.
Yes, Manafort was prosecuted for matters apart from the 2016 election. I fail to see how this shows the investigation was some kind of hoax. Certainly you are not getting this from Mueller's report, which contains passages like "Manafort instructed Rick Gates, his deputy on the Campaign and a longtime employee, to provide Kilimnik with updates on the Trump Campaign."
I also don't see how saying things like "Mueller failed to report that Manafort sought to move the Ukraine government toward the EU" or "Mueller failed to report that Manafort's associate Kilimnik was an informant for the US State Department" helps your case. If these are items that you feel show the investigation was a hoax, and Mueller did not confirm these items, then you can hardly claim that Mueller confirmed the investigation was a hoax.
I had taken your claim that "Mueller confirmed that the Russian investigation was a hoax" to mean that the actual text of Mueller's report showed this, but given your absence of citations from the report, perhaps I misunderstood you?
paulsurovell said:
jamie said:
Paul - Warren cited the Mueller report as her reason to impeach the president - do you understand her basis - would you refuse to vote for her because of this?
Bernie cited the Ukraine issue as his basis to impeach Trump - was he wrong as well?
As I've written on other threads, I think the best case for the Dems is to censure Trump.
For the record - here's Bernie's reaction to the Mueller report which was spot on:
“It is clear that Donald Trump wanted nothing more than to shut down the Mueller investigation,” Sanders said in a statement. “While we have more detail from today's report than before, Congress must continue its investigation into Trump's conduct and any foreign attempts to influence our election.”
“We must also work to do everything we can to protect our future elections from the significant threat of foreign interference, and I call on President Trump and Republican leadership to stop obstructing the necessary work to protect our democracy.”.
I would love to know Paul's thought to this person's reaction:
"If the president of the United States had been indicted for conspiring with Russia to interfere with and affect the outcome of our elections, it would have precipitated a terribly divisive crisis that could have even led to civil war"
PVW said:
paulsurovell said:
Mueller used a huge of amount of resources and time prosecuting Paul Manafort for matters that had nothing to do with the 2016 election. Parenthetically, Mueller failed to report that Manafort sought to move the Ukraine government toward the EU, away from Putin. And Mueller failed to report that Manafort's associate Kilimnik was an informant for the US State Department.
Yes, Manafort was prosecuted for matters apart from the 2016 election. I fail to see how this shows the investigation was some kind of hoax. Certainly you are not getting this from Mueller's report, which contains passages like "Manafort instructed Rick Gates, his deputy on the Campaign and a longtime employee, to provide Kilimnik with updates on the Trump Campaign."
Why is that "questionable"?
I also don't see how saying things like "Mueller failed to report that Manafort sought to move the Ukraine government toward the EU" or "Mueller failed to report that Manafort's associate Kilimnik was an informant for the US State Department" helps your case. If these are items that you feel show the investigation was a hoax, and Mueller did not confirm these items, then you can hardly claim that Mueller confirmed the investigation was a hoax.
Mueller's biggest effort was to prosecute someone for something unrelated to the 2016 election and unrelated to the Russian government. Mueller was supposed to be investigating collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russian government to influence the 2016 election. He wasn't. That's why the investigation was a hoax.
I mention Manafort's pro-EU efforts and Kilimnik's pro-US efforts as examples of how Mueller -- and the media -- falsely implied that both were pro-Russian and thus there was collusion, regardless of the total absence of any collusion. That's another aspect of the hoax.
I had taken your claim that "Mueller confirmed that the Russian investigation was a hoax" to mean that the actual text of Mueller's report showed this, but given your absence of citations from the report, perhaps I misunderstood you?
No, Mueller didn't confirm it in the sense that he said "My investigation was a hoax." What I mean by "Mueller confirmed . . . " is shorthand for the Mueller Report's absence of any evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russian government confirms the argument that the investigation was a hoax.
jamie said:
paulsurovell said:
jamie said:
Paul - Warren cited the Mueller report as her reason to impeach the president - do you understand her basis - would you refuse to vote for her because of this?
Bernie cited the Ukraine issue as his basis to impeach Trump - was he wrong as well?
As I've written on other threads, I think the best case for the Dems is to censure Trump.
For the record - here's Bernie's reaction to the Mueller report which was spot on:
“It is clear that Donald Trump wanted nothing more than to shut down the Mueller investigation,” Sanders said in a statement. “While we have more detail from today's report than before, Congress must continue its investigation into Trump's conduct and any foreign attempts to influence our election.”“We must also work to do everything we can to protect our future elections from the significant threat of foreign interference, and I call on President Trump and Republican leadership to stop obstructing the necessary work to protect our democracy.”.I would love to know Paul's thought to this person's reaction:
"If the president of the United States had been indicted for conspiring with Russia to interfere with and affect the outcome of our elections, it would have precipitated a terribly divisive crisis that could have even led to civil war"
I think the full statement is a good one.
“I strongly supported Mueller being allowed to complete his investigation into allegations that President Trump colluded with Russia to influence the outcome of the 2016 elections. Mueller was able to do so, has submitted his findings, and the American people should be allowed to see Mueller’s report.
“What we know is that Mueller reported that his investigation revealed no such collusion. Now we all need to put aside our partisan interests and recognize that finding the president of the United States not guilty of conspiring with a foreign power to interfere with our elections is a good thing for America.
“If the president of the United States had been indicted for conspiring with Russia to interfere with and affect the outcome of our elections, it would have precipitated a terribly divisive crisis that could have even led to civil war.
“Now we must stand together and move beyond this divisive issue that has taken up enough of the national conversation. I'm calling on Congress to protect the integrity of the 2020 elections—and all elections—by passing my Securing America's Elections Act, which empowers every state to use voter-verified paper ballots, making it impossible for Russia or anyone else to change our election results.
“Americans all over the country are asking when our leaders, from every party, are going to put aside partisan politics and work to address the challenges that are threatening American lives and livelihoods. We have a lot of work to do—rebuilding our country's crumbling infrastructure, ending wasteful regime change wars, forging a clean energy future, ensuring healthcare for all, achieving immigration reform, and so much more.”
jamie said:
And as we speak - the DOJ wants to block Grand Jury testimony.
That's where all the evidence of collusion is hidden, right?
jamie said:
So - you like her Trumpian Civil War threat? ok - good to know!
No, I don't "like" it, but I think it would have been a possibility. You don't?
paulsurovell said:
jamie said:
So - you like her Trumpian Civil War threat? ok - good to know!
No, I don't "like" it, but I think it would have been a possibility. You don't?
Not in the slightest. Trump and his cronies have threatened that without him in office - there would be a mass devastation, people rioting in the streets, the stock market would crash and there will be a major recession.
I do believe the crash and recession may be imminent, but it will be because of Trump. Civil war - not even close.
When anyone correlates a civil war - or mass violence in the event this president is removed from office is essentially telling us that Trump should have full immunity from anything he does while in office. And like Mulvaney says - Get over it.
jamie said:
paulsurovell said:
jamie said:
So - you like her Trumpian Civil War threat? ok - good to know!
No, I don't "like" it, but I think it would have been a possibility. You don't?
Not in the slightest. Trump and his cronies have threatened that without him in office - there would be a mass devastation, people rioting in the streets, the stock market would crash and there will be a major recession.
I do believe the crash and recession may be imminent, but it will be because of Trump. Civil war - not even close.
When anyone correlates a civil war - or mass violence in the event this president is removed from office is essentially telling us that Trump should have full immunity from anything he does while in office. And like Mulvaney says - Get over it.
This is interesting, because it rejects the argument that Trump supporters -- some of whom have called for "Second Amendment Solutions" -- are prone to violence.
I have no idea what your point is here. Please expand.
Tulsi and Trumpers are pretty much saying - don't hold the president accountable (constitutional impeachment process) - because if you remove him - we'll have a civil war.
paulsurovell said:
PVW said:
paulsurovell said:
Mueller used a huge of amount of resources and time prosecuting Paul Manafort for matters that had nothing to do with the 2016 election. Parenthetically, Mueller failed to report that Manafort sought to move the Ukraine government toward the EU, away from Putin. And Mueller failed to report that Manafort's associate Kilimnik was an informant for the US State Department.
Yes, Manafort was prosecuted for matters apart from the 2016 election. I fail to see how this shows the investigation was some kind of hoax. Certainly you are not getting this from Mueller's report, which contains passages like "Manafort instructed Rick Gates, his deputy on the Campaign and a longtime employee, to provide Kilimnik with updates on the Trump Campaign."Why is that "questionable"?
I also don't see how saying things like "Mueller failed to report that Manafort sought to move the Ukraine government toward the EU" or "Mueller failed to report that Manafort's associate Kilimnik was an informant for the US State Department" helps your case. If these are items that you feel show the investigation was a hoax, and Mueller did not confirm these items, then you can hardly claim that Mueller confirmed the investigation was a hoax.
Mueller's biggest effort was to prosecute someone for something unrelated to the 2016 election and unrelated to the Russian government. Mueller was supposed to be investigating collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russian government to influence the 2016 election. He wasn't. That's why the investigation was a hoax.
I mention Manafort's pro-EU efforts and Kilimnik's pro-US efforts as examples of how Mueller -- and the media -- falsely implied that both were pro-Russian and thus there was collusion, regardless of the total absence of any collusion. That's another aspect of the hoax.
I had taken your claim that "Mueller confirmed that the Russian investigation was a hoax" to mean that the actual text of Mueller's report showed this, but given your absence of citations from the report, perhaps I misunderstood you?
No, Mueller didn't confirm it in the sense that he said "My investigation was a hoax." What I mean by "Mueller confirmed . . . " is shorthand for the Mueller Report's absence of any evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russian government confirms the argument that the investigation was a hoax.
I don't follow your logic on Manafort at all. You seem to be arguing that if an investigation is opened into one matter, and in the course of the investigation different issues are discovered and prosecuted, that somehow invalidates the original investigation. If that's your position, you're welcome to it, but it's not one I share.
And this is the weakness of your argument in a nutshell. As you originally phrased it - "I don't rely on Mueller. His report -- regarding collusion -- confirms what I've been saying for more than two years on this thread," sounds like you are arguing that if Mueller Truthers like myself follow the sources, standards, and positions we've already accepted, this will lead us to accept your position. This would be a pretty powerful argument!
Instead, it turns out this is "shorthand for the Mueller Report's absence of any evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russian government confirms the argument that the investigation was a hoax."
That's a considerably weaker argument. In the first place, it conflates the general understanding collusion with meeting the legal burden of proving criminal conspiracy. Going back to Manafort, the report says he passed internal campaign information to someone the report claims has ties to Russian intelligence. That may not meet the legal standard of criminal conspiracy, but to a Mueller Truther like myself that sounds an awful lot like collusion. To reject this, I would need to accept sources outside of Mueller's report. In other words, only if I already believe that the investigation was a hoax, and interpret the Mueller report in that light, then would I reach your position.
But that's just a tautology. Of course if I already agree with you, I'll agree with you. But if I don't, well then you haven't made much of an attempt at convincing me.
PVW said:
paulsurovell said:
PVW said:
paulsurovell said:
Mueller used a huge of amount of resources and time prosecuting Paul Manafort for matters that had nothing to do with the 2016 election. Parenthetically, Mueller failed to report that Manafort sought to move the Ukraine government toward the EU, away from Putin. And Mueller failed to report that Manafort's associate Kilimnik was an informant for the US State Department.
Yes, Manafort was prosecuted for matters apart from the 2016 election. I fail to see how this shows the investigation was some kind of hoax. Certainly you are not getting this from Mueller's report, which contains passages like "Manafort instructed Rick Gates, his deputy on the Campaign and a longtime employee, to provide Kilimnik with updates on the Trump Campaign."Why is that "questionable"?
I also don't see how saying things like "Mueller failed to report that Manafort sought to move the Ukraine government toward the EU" or "Mueller failed to report that Manafort's associate Kilimnik was an informant for the US State Department" helps your case. If these are items that you feel show the investigation was a hoax, and Mueller did not confirm these items, then you can hardly claim that Mueller confirmed the investigation was a hoax.
Mueller's biggest effort was to prosecute someone for something unrelated to the 2016 election and unrelated to the Russian government. Mueller was supposed to be investigating collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russian government to influence the 2016 election. He wasn't. That's why the investigation was a hoax.
I mention Manafort's pro-EU efforts and Kilimnik's pro-US efforts as examples of how Mueller -- and the media -- falsely implied that both were pro-Russian and thus there was collusion, regardless of the total absence of any collusion. That's another aspect of the hoax.
I had taken your claim that "Mueller confirmed that the Russian investigation was a hoax" to mean that the actual text of Mueller's report showed this, but given your absence of citations from the report, perhaps I misunderstood you?
No, Mueller didn't confirm it in the sense that he said "My investigation was a hoax." What I mean by "Mueller confirmed . . . " is shorthand for the Mueller Report's absence of any evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russian government confirms the argument that the investigation was a hoax.
I don't follow your logic on Manafort at all. You seem to be arguing that if an investigation is opened into one matter, and in the course of the investigation different issues are discovered and prosecuted, that somehow invalidates the original investigation. If that's your position, you're welcome to it, but it's not one I share.
Manafort was not investigated by Mueller over issues that had arisen from the original investigation.
And this is the weakness of your argument in a nutshell. As you originally phrased it - "I don't rely on Mueller. His report -- regarding collusion -- confirms what I've been saying for more than two years on this thread," sounds like you are arguing that if Mueller Truthers like myself follow the sources, standards, and positions we've already accepted, this will lead us to accept your position. This would be a pretty powerful argument!
Well I've asked you for examples in Mueller's report that show "questionable activities" by members of the Trump campaign, but you haven't provided any. So I don't see any sign that you have actually tried to "follow the sources, standards, and positions we've already accepted". Simply put -- what is it in the Mueller report that led you to believe that he investigated "questionable activities" that suggested collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russian government in the 2016 election?
Instead, it turns out this is "shorthand for the Mueller Report's absence of any evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russian government confirms the argument that the investigation was a hoax."
That's a considerably weaker argument. In the first place, it conflates the general understanding collusion with meeting the legal burden of proving criminal conspiracy. Going back to Manafort, the report says he passed internal campaign information to someone the report claims has ties to Russian intelligence.
Mueller failed to mention Kilimnik's connections to the US State Department, which puts the story in an entirely different light. Similar to Mueller's failure to mention that Manafort's efforts in Ukraine were pro-EU and anti-Putin. So the story that was leaked and blasted by the media was part of the hoax.
That may not meet the legal standard of criminal conspiracy, but to a Mueller Truther like myself that sounds an awful lot like collusion. To reject this, I would need to accept sources outside of Mueller's report. In other words, only if I already believe that the investigation was a hoax, and interpret the Mueller report in that light, then would I reach your position.
Mueller concluded that there was no evidence that the information was received or used by the Russian government.
But that's just a tautology. Of course if I already agree with you, I'll agree with you. But if I don't, well then you haven't made much of an attempt at convincing me.
This article by Aaron Mate covers most of my reasons for thinking that the Mueller investigation was a hoax. If you disagree with any of them, I'm happy to discuss them:
paulsurovell said:
Manafort was not investigated by Mueller over issues that had arisen from the original investigation.
Huh?
Well I've asked you for examples in Mueller's report that show "questionable activities" by members of the Trump campaign, but you haven't provided any
Sure I have. I said this already:
"I don't see how it would be helpful for me to summarize the individual instances cited; my point for each of them is the same as for the June meeting you referenced: there were sufficient questions that could onlybe answered by an investigation."
And more specifically, I also said this:
"Going back to Manafort, the report says he passed internal campaign information to someone the report claims has ties to Russian intelligence. That may not meet the legal standard of criminal conspiracy, but to a Mueller Truther like myself that sounds an awful lot like collusion."
In case you need me to spell it out, something that "sounds an awful lot like collusion" is an example of a "questionable activity."
Mueller failed to mention Kilimnik's connections to the US State Department, which puts the story in an entirely different light. Similar to Mueller's failure to mention that Manafort's efforts in Ukraine were pro-EU and anti-Putin. So the story that was leaked and blasted by the media was part of the hoax.
That's a claim you've made. Unless I already agree with you, why would I find this claim convincing?
Mueller concluded that there was no evidence that the information was received or used by the Russian government.
Your claim here is not supported by the text of the report, and is an example of a mistake you frequently make -- treating a failure to establish something as a positive conclusion.
This article by Aaron Mate covers most of my reasons for thinking that the Mueller investigation was a hoax. If you disagree with any of them, I'm happy to discuss them:
I'm not too interested in your reasons for thinking Mueller's investigation was a hoax. I was interested in your claim that Mueller showed the investigation was a hoax. Since it turns out that you didn't actually mean that after all, and it was just a shorthand for "If you already believe Russian interference was a hoax you'll believe Mueller's investigation was a hoax too" I'm not so interested.
PVW said:
paulsurovell said:
Manafort was not investigated by Mueller over issues that had arisen from the original investigation.
Huh?
The DOJ met with Manafort in 2014 over the matters that Mueller investigated him for.
Well I've asked you for examples in Mueller's report that show "questionable activities" by members of the Trump campaign, but you haven't provided any
Sure I have. I said this already:
"I don't see how it would be helpful for me to summarize the individual instances cited; my point for each of them is the same as for the June meeting you referenced: there were sufficient questions that could onlybe answered by an investigation."
And more specifically, I also said this:
"Going back to Manafort, the report says he passed internal campaign information to someone the report claims has ties to Russian intelligence. That may not meet the legal standard of criminal conspiracy, but to a Mueller Truther like myself that sounds an awful lot like collusion."
In case you need me to spell it out, something that "sounds an awful lot like collusion" is an example of a "questionable activity."
OK, so you're calling this a "questionable activity". That description relies on Muellers tainted description of Kilimnik which omits reports that he had ties to the US State Department. Additionally, there's no logical nexus between giving the data to Deripaska and alleged Russian interference in the election. It was known before December 2017 that the Russian Facebook ads were not placed in states that mattered and many were placed before Manafort joined the Trump campaign. And of course Mueller found no connection.
- Maryland was targeted by nearly five times as many ads as was Wisconsin (262 to 55).
- Thirty-five of the 55 ads targeting Wisconsin ran during the primary.
- More ads targeted DC than Pennsylvania.
- A total of $1,979 was spent in Wisconsin — $1,925 of it in the primary.
- The spending in Michigan and Pennsylvania were $823 and $300, respectively.
- More of the geographically targeted ads ran in 2015 than in 2016.
paulsurovell said:
Mueller failed to mention Kilimnik's connections to the US State Department, which puts the story in an entirely different light. Similar to Mueller's failure to mention that Manafort's efforts in Ukraine were pro-EU and anti-Putin. So the story that was leaked and blasted by the media was part of the hoax.That's a claim you've made. Unless I already agree with you, why would I find this claim convincing?
These claims are undisputed.
paulsurovell said:
Mueller concluded that there was no evidence that the information was received or used by the Russian government.Your claim here is not supported by the text of the report, and is an example of a mistake you frequently make -- treating a failure to establish something as a positive conclusion.
I probably should have said "Mueller found no evidence that the information was received or used by the Russian government". The text from p. 131 of the Mueller Report appears in the graphic below
paulsurovell said:
This article by Aaron Mate covers most of my reasons for thinking that the Mueller investigation was a hoax. If you disagree with any of them, I'm happy to discuss them:
I'm not too interested in your reasons for thinking Mueller's investigation was a hoax. I was interested in your claim that Mueller showed the investigation was a hoax. Since it turns out that you didn't actually mean that after all, and it was just a shorthand for "If you already believe Russian interference was a hoax you'll believe Mueller's investigation was a hoax too" I'm not so interested.
The main reason why people believe that Russia interfered in the 2016 election and despite Mueller continue to believe that Trump colluded with the Russian government in the election, is because they live in a mainstream media bubble which censors dissenting views like Aaron Mate's:
Back to the other meddling story -- US meddling in Venezuela -- several of the key right-wing regimes which support Trump's attempt to overthrow the Venezuelan government are under threat (Brazil, Chile and Ecuador) and one has already flipped (Argentina) where newly-elected President Fernandez has said he won't participate in the anti-Maduro Lima Group but instead will join the pro-Maduro group of Mexico, Bolivia, Uruguay and Caricom, to work for dialogue between Maduro and the opposition.
Not good for the Yankee Imperialist camp.
First paragraph of this page, Gates recounts that Manafort and Kilimnik are the originators of the Ukraine Hacked The DNC rumor.
Interesting reporting out this morning about Mueller investigation documents, and all kinds of things Manafort was questioned on - and how his business in Ukraine fits into the scope of the investigation.
[Edited to add] Mr. Ridski posted about it as I typed.
nohero said:
Interesting reporting out this morning about Mueller investigation documents, and all kinds of things Manafort was questioned on - and how his business in Ukraine fits into the scope of the investigation.
[Edited to add] Mr. Ridski posted about it as I typed.
How does the "reporting" show that Manafort's Ukraine business fits into the investigation of Russian government collusion with the Trump campaign to influence the election?
paulsurovell said:
How does the "reporting" show that Manafort's Ukraine business fits into the investigation of Russian government collusion with the Trump campaign to influence the election?
I wrote "scope of the investigation", and if you just read the excerpt Mr. Ridski provided above, you see how his Ukraine business and Russian contacts are intertwined.
nohero said:
paulsurovell said:
How does the "reporting" show that Manafort's Ukraine business fits into the investigation of Russian government collusion with the Trump campaign to influence the election?
I wrote "scope of the investigation", and if you just read the excerpt Mr. Ridski provided above, you see how his Ukraine business and Russian contacts are intertwined.
Nothing here about Manafort's business relates to the "scope of the investigation" into Trump-Russian collusion in the 2016 election.
However, the document confirms that the campaign did not receive any information about Hillary's emails, including from Papadopoulos, which is consistent with what Papadopoulos said -- that he thought what Mifsud told him was a joke so he didn't bother telling the campaign.
But the official story is that what Mifsud told Papadopoulos was sufficient to launch an investigation -- not into Mifsud, but into the Trump campaign.
The circumstances around the Mifsud-Papadopoulos encounter is what Barr and Durham are investigating, including Mifsud's ties to Western intelligence (omitted in the Mueller Report). Mueller said that Mifsud lied to the FBI but was unwilling to explain why he wasn't indicted in his testimony to Congress.
paulsurovell said:
nohero said:
paulsurovell said:
How does the "reporting" show that Manafort's Ukraine business fits into the investigation of Russian government collusion with the Trump campaign to influence the election?
I wrote "scope of the investigation", and if you just read the excerpt Mr. Ridski provided above, you see how his Ukraine business and Russian contacts are intertwined.
Nothing here about Manafort's business relates to the "scope of the investigation" into Trump-Russian collusion in the 2016 election.
I keep writing "scope of the investigation", and Paul keeps writing "into Trump-Russian collusion", which is why we appear to disagree. Mueller was supposed to look into Manafort's business in Ukraine.
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4429989-Rod-Rosenstein-memo-outlining-scope-of-Mueller.html
[Edited to add] Going back to "scope of the investigation" objections is pretty old, at this point.
nohero said:
I keep writing "scope of the investigation", and Paul keeps writing "into Trump-Russian collusion", which is why we appear to disagree. Mueller was supposed to look into Manafort's business in Ukraine.
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4429989-Rod-Rosenstein-memo-outlining-scope-of-Mueller.html
[Edited to add] Going back to "scope of the investigation" objections is pretty old, at this point.
ridski said:
I wish "but her emails" could get old, but some people keep writing and saying things for which that's still the appropriate response.
nohero said:
paulsurovell said:
nohero said:
paulsurovell said:
How does the "reporting" show that Manafort's Ukraine business fits into the investigation of Russian government collusion with the Trump campaign to influence the election?
I wrote "scope of the investigation", and if you just read the excerpt Mr. Ridski provided above, you see how his Ukraine business and Russian contacts are intertwined.
Nothing here about Manafort's business relates to the "scope of the investigation" into Trump-Russian collusion in the 2016 election.
I keep writing "scope of the investigation", and Paul keeps writing "into Trump-Russian collusion", which is why we appear to disagree. Mueller was supposed to look into Manafort's business in Ukraine.
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4429989-Rod-Rosenstein-memo-outlining-scope-of-Mueller.html
[Edited to add] Going back to "scope of the investigation" objections is pretty old, at this point.
I'll give you this one. But keep in mind that the purpose of this amended scope was to justify Mueller's decision to prosecute Manafort for something the DOJ had dropped so he could pressure him to make up stories about Russian collusion.
He destroyed Manafort without getting the stories.
paulsurovell said:
I'll give you this one. But keep in mind that the purpose of this amended scope was to justify Mueller's decision to prosecute Manafort for something the DOJ had dropped so he could pressure him to make up stories about Russian collusion.
He destroyed Manafort without getting the stories.
I'll have to go through the notes to find this one.
ridski said:
paulsurovell said:
I'll give you this one. But keep in mind that the purpose of this amended scope was to justify Mueller's decision to prosecute Manafort for something the DOJ had dropped so he could pressure him to make up stories about Russian collusion.
He destroyed Manafort without getting the stories.
I'll have to go through the notes to find this one.
It may be that mind reading trick again, not in the notes.
A thoughtfully inconclusive article in today’s Times:
Bolivia Crisis Shows the Blurry Line Between Coup and Uprising
DaveSchmidt said:
A thoughtfully inconclusive article in today’s Times:
Bolivia Crisis Shows the Blurry Line Between Coup and Uprising
"Schrödinger's Coup" is an apt term, as described in that piece.
paulsurovell