Why were MSNBC et al.. and liberals so wrong about claims of Russian collusion with Trump

Shad · Mar 25, 2019

dianaiad said:
You know....like the way a search warrant that allows the cops to search for a murder weapon...a knife, say...does not allow them to go tearing the house apart, looking for anything else, after they found that knife.

There is a basic format search warrant which includes unknown items related to a crime and narcotics which is the standard type of warrant used in most cases. Specific search warrants are for property and personal information not at the crime scene like a bank account. Mueller's powers go well beyond standard investigations by police. Also Mueller has access to an "on call" judge which fast tracks search warrants which itself is a standard practice by even police.

Some of the cases brought up by Mueller are based on information provided by people via plea deals thus no warrant is required for one giving information willingly. Flynn for example was caught in a lie and flipped for his deal.

dianaiad · Mar 25, 2019

Shad said:
There is a basic format search warrant which includes unknown items related to a crime and narcotics which is the standard type of warrant used in most cases. Specific search warrants are for property and personal information not at the crime scene like a bank account. Mueller's powers go well beyond standard investigations by police. Also Mueller has access to an "on call" judge which fast tracks search warrants which itself is a standard practice by even police.

Some of the cases brought up by Mueller are based on information provided by people via plea deals thus no warrant is required for one giving information willingly. Flynn for example was caught in a lie and flipped for his deal.

I know...loopholes abound...

But how you can equate 'giving information willingly" with "Plea deals" is beyond me. Such information, seems to me, should be very much on the 'credibility minus' spectrum.

9-10ths_Penguin · Mar 25, 2019

whirlingmerc said:
Howard Dean? etc... why were major figures in the DNC willing to believe terminological inexactitudes or did they know all along that the claims were not true but willing to claim it to the American people?

Tucker Carlson on Mueller Report: "The People On TV Have Been Lying To You"; How Can Jeff Zucker Stay At CNN?

Quote
Tucker Carlson warned the goalposts of investigating President Trump for Russian collusion have moved in a monologue he delivered following news that special counsel Robert Mueller has concluded his probe and submitted his report to Attorney General Bill Barr. Carlson also noted, "not a single American citizen has been charged with anything related to Russian collusion."
unquote

They weren't that wrong. It's been clearly established that Russian agents interfered with the 2016 election and that people within Trump's campaign cooperated with these Russian agents.

It was a reasonable assumption that Trump was also involved.

Now, it seems that Trump wasn't involved - at least not to a level that would constitute a crime - in the election interference, but did apparently try to obstruct the investigation after the fact. Apparently, there's enough nuance in the question of what constitutes "criminal" obstruction that Mueller didn't want to make that call and left it to others.

This isn't that far off of the worst version of what was alleged.

Shad · Mar 25, 2019

dianaiad said:
I know...loopholes abound...

Standard practice at this point be it a loophole or not. Cops use it all the time in murder investigations.

But how you can equate 'giving information willingly" with "Plea deals" is beyond me.

As they can say no to the deal. Flynn picked the deal rather than whatever sentence he might face. Flynn accepted that part of the deal was to provide information upon request.

Such information, seems to me, should be very much on the 'credibility minus' spectrum.

For Cohen a serial liar sure. However for a person such as Flynn their credibility was not ruined as the lie was one of memory and communication errors not a willful deception. This was the conclusion of the FBI itself.

esmith · Mar 25, 2019

9-10ths_Penguin said:
They weren't that wrong. It's been clearly established that Russian agents interfered with the 2016 election and that people within Trump's campaign cooperated with these Russian agents.

It was a reasonable assumption that Trump was also involved.

Now, it seems that Trump wasn't involved - at least not to a level that would constitute a crime - in the election interference, but did apparently try to obstruct the investigation after the fact. Apparently, there's enough nuance in the question of what constitutes "criminal" obstruction that Mueller didn't want to make that call and left it to others.

This isn't that far off of the worst version of what was alleged.

Why don't you come up with proof that the Trump campaign cooperated with Russian agents in regards to the 2016 election vice just beating your gums.

metis · Mar 25, 2019

whirlingmerc said:
Howard Dean? etc... why were major figures in the DNC willing to believe terminological inexactitudes or did they know all along that the claims were not true but willing to claim it to the American people?

You're assuming that they are not right. Establishing a legal basis for collusion and obstruction, especially to take them to the criminal level needed for prosecution, is really quite legally difficult.

Gotta go for now.

9-10ths_Penguin · Mar 25, 2019

esmith said:
Why don't you come up with proof that the Trump campaign cooperated with Russian agents in regards to the 2016 election vice just beating your gums.

- Trump campaign member Papodopolous pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI over his communications with Russian agents.

- Trump national security advisor Flynn also pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI over his communications with Russian agents.

- Manafort admitted in his plea deal that he attempted to tamper with witnesses to the Mueller investigation.

So those are the three people from the Trump campaign who have not only been charged but convicted of crimes related to their collusion with the Russians.

esmith · Mar 25, 2019

9-10ths_Penguin said:
- Trump campaign member Papodopolous pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI over his communications with Russian agents.

- Trump national security advisor Flynn also pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI over his communications with Russian agents.

- Manafort admitted in his plea deal that he attempted to tamper with witnesses to the Mueller investigation.

So those are the three people from the Trump campaign who have not only been charged but convicted of crimes related to their collusion with the Russians.

Just because you say something is not proof. Provide the proof or stop flapping your gums

whirlingmerc · Mar 25, 2019

metis said:
You're assuming that they are not right. Establishing a legal basis for collusion and obstruction, especially to take them to the criminal level needed for prosecution, is really quite legally difficult.

Gotta go for now.

Which is why so many leading democrats perhaps should not have gone out on a limb predicting incitements and prosecutions

fantome profane · Mar 25, 2019

Revoltingest said:
Considering things again, to say Trump is lying is an unreasonable stretch.
Let's look at what "exonerate" means.....
Exoneration - Wikipedia

Clearly, there was no court verdict to overturn. Nay, there was never even a trial,
except in the court of leftish public opinion. This would make his proclamation
metaphorical. As far as their primary accusation, Russian collusion, goes,
the info we've seen so far pretty much does "absolve one [him] from blame",
because they found no evidence upon which to try him.

Considering this again, when Robert Mueller specifically states that this is not an exoneration, I think that means that the Mueller report did not exonerate Trump. This is perhaps the only thing we know right now that the Muller report says. The Mueller report says the Mueller report did not exonerate Trump on the charge of obstruction. Even Trump knows that the Mueller report says it is not an exoneration. So when Trump says the Mueller report exonerated him completely, he knows that is not true. It is a lie.

Twilight Hue · Mar 25, 2019

9-10ths_Penguin said:
They weren't that wrong. It's been clearly established that Russian agents interfered with the 2016 election and that people within Trump's campaign cooperated with these Russian agents.

It was a reasonable assumption that Trump was also involved.

Now, it seems that Trump wasn't involved - at least not to a level that would constitute a crime - in the election interference, but did apparently try to obstruct the investigation after the fact. Apparently, there's enough nuance in the question of what constitutes "criminal" obstruction that Mueller didn't want to make that call and left it to others.

This isn't that far off of the worst version of what was alleged.

Clearly established? I'll bet you can give Mueller some pointers.

Watchmen · Mar 25, 2019

9-10ths_Penguin said:
They weren't that wrong. It's been clearly established that Russian agents interfered with the 2016 election and that people within Trump's campaign cooperated with these Russian agents.

False. The report states no American colluded with Russia to interfere with the 2016 election.

Watchmen · Mar 25, 2019

9-10ths_Penguin said:
- Trump campaign member Papodopolous pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI over his communications with Russian agents.

- Trump national security advisor Flynn also pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI over his communications with Russian agents.

- Manafort admitted in his plea deal that he attempted to tamper with witnesses to the Mueller investigation.

So those are the three people from the Trump campaign who have not only been charged but convicted of crimes related to their collusion with the Russians.

Not very nuanced, are you. No American colluded to interfere with the 2016 election.

Revoltingest · Mar 26, 2019

fantome profane said:
Considering this again, when Robert Mueller specifically states that this is not an exoneration, I think that means that the Mueller report did not exonerate Trump.

I'd never expect a report (or a summary thereof) from an investigation to
show anyone to be innocent. Investigators will find what they find, but they
cannot claim to have found everything. To have found insufficient evidence
for the crimes they wanted to claim is the best result he could've hoped for.

So when Trump says the Mueller report exonerated him completely, he knows that is not true. It is a lie.

"Lie" seems wishful.
People are exonerated of crimes for lack of evidence, not
by having been found innocent. Trump could still be guilty,
& this could be yet discovered. So he's right, & you're wrong.
Does this make you the liar? <snicker, snicker>

Kangaroo Feathers · Mar 26, 2019

fantome profane said:
Considering this again, when Robert Mueller specifically states that this is not an exoneration, I think that means that the Mueller report did not exonerate Trump. This is perhaps the only thing we know right now that the Muller report says. The Mueller report says the Mueller report did not exonerate Trump on the charge of obstruction. Even Trump knows that the Mueller report says it is not an exoneration. So when Trump says the Mueller report exonerated him completely, he knows that is not true. It is a lie.

And yet all the Usual Suspects and assorted Trumpettes are screaming themselves hoarse that this is an exoneration, while getting RSI from all the mutual backslapping. You'd think the fact they have to lie even about the document that lets Donny Dollhands off the hook would tell them something about themselves, but here we are.

9-10ths_Penguin · Mar 26, 2019

Watchmen said:
Not very nuanced, are you. No American colluded to interfere with the 2016 election.

Except for all the ones who did.

Along with the list I just gave, it's also clear that Donald Jr. did collude with the Russians. Maybe it didn't rise to the level of involving crimes, but he still did some pretty unethical things in an attempt to work with the Russians to interfere with the election.

Revoltingest · Mar 26, 2019

9-10ths_Penguin said:
Except for all the ones who did.

Along with the list I just gave, it's also clear that Donald Jr. did collude with the Russians. Maybe it didn't rise to the level of involving crimes, but he still did some pretty unethical things in an attempt to work with the Russians to interfere with the election.

So you're saying a politician acted legally but unethically?
That's about the best we can hope for here.
It seems that you're giving Donald Jr high praise!

metis · Mar 26, 2019

whirlingmerc said:
Which is why so many leading democrats perhaps should not have gone out on a limb predicting incitements and prosecutions

Yes, some did, which is also why Pelosi and Schumar tried to rein them back in.

Watchmen · Mar 27, 2019

9-10ths_Penguin said:
Except for all the ones who did.

Along with the list I just gave, it's also clear that Donald Jr. did collude with the Russians. Maybe it didn't rise to the level of involving crimes, but he still did some pretty unethical things in an attempt to work with the Russians to interfere with the election.

Try again. Who has been convicted of collusion?

Watchmen · Mar 27, 2019

metis said:
Yes, some did, which is also why Pelosi and Schumar tried to rein them back in.

I give Pelosi a lot of credit for that. I’m not a fan of her policies, but she certainly demonstrated experience, wisdom, and leadership in that moment.

Why were MSNBC et al.. and liberals so wrong about claims of Russian collusion with Trump

Veteran Member

Well-Known Member

1/10 Subway Stalinist

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

aged ecumenical anthropologist

1/10 Subway Stalinist

Veteran Member

Well-Known Member

Anti-Woke = Anti-Justice

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Pragmatic Libertarian

Yea, it is written in the Book of Cyril...

1/10 Subway Stalinist

Pragmatic Libertarian

aged ecumenical anthropologist

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member