The inevitable end result of our last 56 years

[W. Niederhut]

12 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

John,

     I asked Mathew Koch which of three "reports" he was referring to-- the Congressional J6 Report, Mueller Report, or U.S. Senate Intel Report.  He didn't specify, so I briefly summarized the damning evidence in the J6 Report.

    Here is a fairly concise summary of the damning evidence in the (redacted) Mueller Report.

    Since Mathew never reads the reference links I post, I'll print this out for him.

KEY FINDINGS FROM THE MUELLER REPORT

 

 

The Special Counsel investigation uncovered extensive criminal activity

 

•The investigation produced 37 indictments; seven guilty pleas or convictions; and compellingevidence that the president obstructed justice on multiple occasions. Mueller also uncovered and referred 14 criminal matters to other components of the Department of Justice.

 

•Trump associates repeatedly lied to investigators about their contacts with Russians, and President Trump refused to answer questions about his efforts to impede federal proceedings and influence the testimony of witnesses.

 

•A statement signed by over 1,000 former federal prosecutors concluded that if any other American engaged in the same efforts to impede federal proceedings the way Trump did, they would likely be indicted for multiple charges of obstruction of justice.

 

Russia engaged in extensive attacks on the U.S. election system in 2016

 

•Russian interference in the 2016 election was “sweeping and systemic.” (1)

 

•Major attack avenues included a social media “information warfare” campaign that “favored” candidate Trump (2) and the hacking of Clinton campaign-related databases and release of stolen materials through Russian-created entities and Wikileaks. (3)

 

•Russia also targeted databases in many states related to administering elections gaining access to information for millions of registered voters.

 

(1) SPECIAL COUNSEL ROBERT S.MUELLER,III, U.S. DEP’T OF JUSTICE, REPORT ON THE INVESTIGATION INTO RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE IN THE 2016 ELECTION Vol. I, 1-5 (2019).

(2) Id. at Vol. I, 1-4, 14-35.

(3) Id. at Vol. I, 1-5, 36-50.

(4) Id. at Vol. I, 50-51.

 

The investigation “identified numerous links between the Russian government and the Trump Campaign” and established that the Trump Campaign “showed interest in WikiLeaks's releases of documents and welcomed their potential to damage candidate Clinton”

 

 

•In 2015 and 2016, Michael Cohen pursued a hotel/residence project in Moscow on behalf of Trump while he was campaigning for President. (5) Then-candidate Trump personally signed a letter of intent.

 

•Senior members of the Trump campaign, including Paul Manafort, Donald Trump, Jr., and Jared Kushner took a June 9, 2016, meeting with Russian nationals at Trump Tower, New York, after outreach from an intermediary informed Trump, Jr., that the Russians had derogatory information on Clinton that was “part of Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump.” (6)

 

Special Counsel Mueller explicitly declined to exonerate President Trump and instead detailed multiple episodes in which he engaged in obstructive conduct

 

 

•The Mueller Report states that if the Special Counsel’s Office felt they could clear the president of wrongdoing, they would have said so. Instead, the Report explicitly states that it “does not exonerate” the President (10) and explains that the Office of Special Counsel “accepted” the Department of Justice policy that a sitting President cannot be indicted. (11)

 

•The Mueller report details multiple episodes in which there is evidence that the President obstructed justice. The pattern of conduct and the manner in which the

President sought to impede investigations—including through one-on-one meetings with senior officials—is damning to the President.

 

•Five episodes of obstructive conduct stand out as being particularly serious:

 

In June 2017 President Trump directed White House Counsel Don McGahn to order the firing of the Special Counsel after press reports that Mueller was investigating the President for obstruction of justice; (12) months later Trump asked McGahn to falsely refute press accounts reporting this directive and create a false paper record on this issue–all of which McGahn refused to do. (13)

 

After National Security Advisor Michael Flynn was fired in February 2017 for lying to FBI investigators about his contacts with Russian Ambassador Kislyak, Trump cleared his office for a one-on-one meeting with then-FBI Director James Comey and asked Comey to “let [Flynn] go; ”he also asked then-Deputy National Security Advisor K.T. McFarland to draft an internal memo saying Trump did not direct Flynn to call Kislyak, which McFarland did not do because she did not know whether that was true. (14)

 

In July 2017, the President directed former campaign manager Corey Lewandowski to instruct the Attorney General to limit Mueller’s investigation, a step the Report asserted “was intended to prevent further investigative scrutiny of the President’s and his campaign’s conduct.” (15)

 

In 2017 and 2018, the President asked the Attorney General to “un-recuse” himself from the Mueller inquiry, actions from which a “reasonable inference” could be made that “the President believed that an un-recused Attorney General would play a protective role and could shield the President from the ongoing Russia Investigation.” (16)

 

The Report raises questions about whether the President, by and through his private attorneys, floated the possibility of pardons for the purpose of influencing the cooperation of Flynn, Manafort, and an unnamed person with law enforcement. (17)

 

(10) Id. at Vol. II, 8.

(11) Id.

(12) Mueller Report at Vol. II, 77-90.

(13) Id. at Vol. II, 113-18.

(14) Id. at Vol. II, 40-44.

(15) Id. at Vol. II, 319-25.

(16) Id. at Vol. II, 319-25.

(17) Id. at Vol. II, 332-45.

 

•Beginning in June 2016, a Trump associate “forecast to senior [Trump] Campaign officials that WikiLeaks would release information damaging to candidate Clinton.” (7)   A section of the Report that remains heavily redacted suggests that Roger Stone was this associate and that he had significant contacts with the campaign about Wikileaks. (8)

 

•The Report described multiple occasions where Trump associates lied to investigators about Trump associate contacts with Russia.Trump associates George Papadopoulos, Rick Gates, Michael Flynn, and Michael Cohen all admitted that they made false statements to Federal investigators or to Congress about their contacts. In addition, Roger Stone faces trial this fall for obstruction of justice, five counts of making false statements, and one count of witness tampering.

 

•The Report contains no evidence that any Trump campaign official reported their contacts with Russia or WikiLeaks to U.S. law enforcement authorities during the campaign or presidential transition, despite public reports on Russian hacking starting in June 2016 and candidate Trump’s August 2016 intelligence briefing warning him that Russia was seeking to interfere in the election.

 

•The Report raised questions about why Trump and associates repeatedly asserted Trump had no connections to Russia. (9)

 

 

(5) Id. at Vol. I, 67-80.

(6) Id. at Vol. I, 110-20.

(7) Id. at Vol. I, 5.

(8) Id. at Vol. I, 51-54.

(9) Id. at Vol. II, 18-23.

 

Congress needs to continue investigating and assessing elements of the Mueller Report

 

 

•The redactions of the Mueller Report appear to conceal the extent to which the Trump campaign had advance knowledge of the release of hacked emails by WikiLeaks. For instance, redactions conceal content of discussions that the Report states occurred between Trump, Cohen, and Manafort in July 2016 shortly after Wikileaks released hacked emails; (18) the Report further notes,“Trump told Gates that more releases of damaging information would be coming,” but redacts the contextual information around that statement. (19) 

 

•A second issue the Report does not examine is the fact that the President was involved in conduct that was the subject of a case the Special Counsel referred to the Southern District of New York–which the Report notes “ultimately led to the conviction of Cohen in the Southern District of New York for campaign-finance offenses related to payments he said he made at the direction of the President.” (20)

 

•The Report also redacts in entirety its discussion of 12 of the 14 matters Mueller referred to other law enforcement authorities. (21)

 

•Further,the Report details non-cooperation with the inquiry by the President, including refusing requests by the Special Counsel for an interview; providing written responses that the Office of the Special Counsel considered “incomplete” and “imprecise” and that involved the President stating on “more than 30 occasions that he ‘does not recall’ or ‘remember’ or ‘have an independent recollection.’” (22)

 

 

(18) Id. at Vol. I, 53.

(19) Id. at Vol. I, 54.

(20) Id. at Vol. II, 77, fn. 500.

(21) Id. at Vol. II, Appendix D.

(22) Id. at Vol. II, Appendix C

 

Where are Mathew Koch and Chris Barnard today?

Weren't you two asking yesterday for a summary of how the Mueller Report implicated Trump in his Russiagate scandal-- since Mathew refused to read the Mueller Report?

Geez...

John, the reason I posted the summary-- instead of the link-- is that Mathew and Chris explicitly requested a summary statement, instead of a mere link.

[Matthew Koch]

Just now, W. Niederhut said:

Where are Mathew Koch and Chris Barnard today?

Weren't you two asking yesterday for a summary of how the Mueller Report implicated Trump in his Russiagate scandal-- since Mathew refused to read the Mueller Report?

Geez...

John, the reason I posted the summary-- instead of the link-- is that Mathew and Chris explicitly requested a summary statement, instead of a mere link.

You showed it was a nothing burger, I can't speak for Chris but I'm done waisting my time with you.. 

[Guest]

19 hours ago, Chris Barnard said:

Thank you. I think I’ve seen you say a lot of this before. Is any of that subjective or open to interpretation? 
 

Do you feel certain that Trump will be convicted at this point? When is the result?
 

Apologies if this has been said recently, I have tuned out on this topic. 

@W. Niederhut I did reply here, and ignored that no smoking gun was provided. I asked you some questions politely in return.

 

[Guest]

11 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said:

Where are Mathew Koch and Chris Barnard today?

Weren't you two asking yesterday for a summary of how the Mueller Report implicated Trump in his Russiagate scandal-- since Mathew refused to read the Mueller Report?

Geez...

John, the reason I posted the summary-- instead of the link-- is that Mathew and Chris explicitly requested a summary statement, instead of a mere link.

I am here, just had a lovely Sunday. We both (as much as I can speak for American counterpart, Matthew) requested evidence. I did reply to you in the post above. 🙂 

[W. Niederhut]

6 minutes ago, Matthew Koch said:

You showed it was a nothing burger, I can't speak for Chris but I'm done waisting my time with you.. 

Bunk.  It's hardly a nothing burger, Mathew.  It's a very specific, detailed summary of the Trump campaign's involvement with Russian interference in our 2016 election, and of Trump and Manafort's efforts to conceal the evidence.

You requested a summary, and I posted it for you. 

Now you refuse to face the facts, just as you have refused to read the Mueller Report and the Senate Intel Report on Russiagate-- opting, instead, to believe the false alternate narratives in the MAGA-verse.

And, BTW, Trump, Bill Barr, Rupert Murdoch, Breitbart, Kremlin propagandists, et.al., have invested a great deal of time and resources in promoting false narratives about Russiagate.

John Cotter's misleading Wikipedia quote (above) is one example.

Anyone interested in the subject should take a few minutes to review the summary of the Mueller Report findings that I posted above-- which Mathew Koch erroneously calls a "nothing burger."

 

[Matthew Koch]

4 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said:

Bunk.  It's hardly a nothing burger, Mathew.  It's a very specific, detailed summary of the Trump campaign's involvement with Russian interference in our 2016 election, and of Trump and Manafort's efforts to conceal the evidence.

You requested a summary, and I posted it for you. 

Now you refuse to face the facts, just as you have refused to read the Mueller Report and the Senate Intel Report on Russiagate-- opting, instead, to believe the false alternate narratives in the MAGA-verse.

And, BTW, Trump, Bill Barr, Rupert Murdoch, Breitbart, Kremlin propagandists, et.al., have invested a great deal of time and resources in promoting false narratives about Russiagate.

John Cotter's misleading Wikipedia quote (above) is one example.

Anyone interested in the subject should take a few minutes to review the summary of the Mueller Report findings that I posted above-- which Mathew Koch erroneously calls a "nothing burger."

 

No it's not you're a scammer like Schiff, You are the boy who cried RUSSIA! (In Tucker Carlson sarcastic voice) 

I don't take you serious anymore and no-one else should. You couldn't even get that your Cass Sunstein article applies to the efforts to counter MAGA by the government that we saw like QAnon, Oath Keepers and Proud Boys.🦆 

 

[W. Niederhut]

59 minutes ago, Matthew Koch said:

No it's not you're a scammer like Schiff, You are the boy who cried RUSSIA! (In Tucker Carlson sarcastic voice) 

I don't take you serious anymore and no-one else should. You couldn't even get that your Cass Sunstein article applies to the efforts to counter MAGA by the government that we saw like QAnon, Oath Keepers and Proud Boys.🦆 

 

Got it.  You didn't read the Report or the summary that you, yourself, requested.

You are a useful example of how Trump and his Fox echo chamber have succeeded in promoting "alternate facts" and alternate versions of reality in the Trump cult since 2016.

 

[Matthew Koch]

33 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said:

Got it.  You didn't read the Report or the summary that you, yourself, requested.

You are a useful example of how Trump and his Fox echo chamber have succeeded in promoting "alternate facts" and alternate versions of reality in the Trump cult since 2016.

 

At this point I am starting to consider you mentally ill, I asked you to write out a paragraph of what it was and stated I'm not reading an 800page. You ignored that and linked it and pretended I didn't say that. When called out again you typed out bulletin points about J6. When people like John called you out about that you copy and pasted stuff from other articles and didn't write out what I asked of you. Now you are misrepresenting that and saying people like John dishonestly quoted things that contradict you. Now you are misquoting me dishonestly so either you are dishonest or corrupt. I think it's probably both.. 

[Kirk Gallaway]

20 hours ago, John Cotter said:

Thanks for that, William, though a link to the article would have sufficed. 

There seems to be some ambiguity about the whole matter as suggested in the following extract from Wikipedia:

"The (Mueller) report concludes that the investigation 'did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.'"

It's also worth noting that on 1st December 2020 Attorney General William Barr stated, "FBI and Justice Department investigators found no evidence of irregularities that would have changed the outcome of the presidential election".

While it certainly seems there was much sculduggery going on, it remains the case that the main reason the Democrats lost the 2016 election was, as I've already said repeatedly, their chronic betrayal of of those who Hillary Clinton called the "deplorables".

 

I think you got 2 out of 3 here John. I'll go with what you got right first.

The Russians did not throw the 2016 election. They did try, but it's no more than we try to mess with them and Putin. But  the difference is, they're all sewed up there. They're relatively inpenetrable. "Cancel culture "is  serious business there, where you could lose your life. It's similar, but to a lesser extent, to the Republican Party in the U.S. Where  any would be leaders don't dare speak out against Trump because it would be the end of their political life.  

 

John: it remains the case that the main reason the Democrats lost the 2016 election was, as I've already said repeatedly, their chronic betrayal of of those who Hillary Clinton called the "deplorables".

I think any party has a legitimate gripe when they win the popular vote and lose the election. But nobody's going to be able to do anything about that any time soon. The reason the Dems lost was their candidate, and partly the fact that she even mentioned "deplorables".

She ran a terrible campaign. her biggest visceral baggage for me, was that she reminded me of grade school teachers I had who loved the girls and couldn't stand the boys, like me. heh heh

In the campaign, she could have tried to humanize herself more,  but she didn't see any percentage in it. Because she's a finely manicured centrist, who never took any chances. She lost the Dem Presidential nomination  to Obama in 2008 largely because she, as a Senator just blindly went with Bush's War in Iraq and Obama didn't.

 

John:The quote from Wiki.The (Mueller) report concludes that the investigation 'did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.'"

I would say to that, wikipedia's  fos  and Bill Barr's fos. 

 

Mueller, was told by Barr, he couldn't indict a sitting President, so when Mueller finished his investigation, he had to weigh what prospects he could have had for indictment, how much could  he say?, the politics, and the good of the nation, when he could never bring charges anyway. And then to put some blame on Mueller, for some reason he ignored all questions of motive, and was hands off about Trump's finances. (like he never made that possible connection?)

 

John:There seems to be some ambiguity about the whole matter

Enough evidence to have sent less privileged people to jail. But you to have a basic understanding of personal finance and basic sleuthing skills, which many here  on both sides of the forum don't have, and often overlook.  You have to be able to look at the main figures, their history , what they've done up to now, and without passion, extrapolate it to the  current situation.

 

John:Thanks for that, William, though a link to the article would have sufficed. 

Yes, but would you have read it John? W. has said many things here, that I haven't heard any of you raise in opposition, and that is facts. You have zero facts. But of course, you can't just lay there passively with the facts. You have to extrapolate on those facts.

Is' it really such a gigantic leap John, (or Greenwald and Taibbi), that Trump could be compromised by foreign powers? Do you realize there are much greater leaps done sometimes to connect the dots by some esteemed researchers on the JFK side that are passed off as facts?

 

Just to give you an opposing point of view. In my evaluation of the argument up to now. W has all the facts, and now you have a few more. Your best hope  to muster the slightest opposition to W's facts would be  Jeff Carter, though in my judgment, he loses because he can't extrapolate on the facts either.   JMO

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.

 

Edited January 30, 2023 by Kirk Gallaway

[Benjamin Cole]

The whole Russia-gate-bots story turns out to be state propaganda.

As Greenwald points out, there is a newish and curious coalition of Donks, neoliberals and neocons (same thing, no?) and establishment 'Phants, and they want the US populist movement suffocated in the crib. 

Note that one-time CIA Director Michael Morell is part of a group that funded Hamilton 68. 

Hamilton 68 is the Jayson Blair of our times, but on steroids.  

Has the American left been co-opted by shadow-government and globalist actors? Is "being against Trump" enough to link arms with neocons, Wall Street, globalists, Giant Tech and Big Pharma, and anti-laborists? 

Evidently so. 

[W. Niederhut]

6 hours ago, Matthew Koch said:

At this point I am starting to consider you mentally ill, I asked you to write out a paragraph of what it was and stated I'm not reading an 800page. You ignored that and linked it and pretended I didn't say that. When called out again you typed out bulletin points about J6. When people like John called you out about that you copy and pasted stuff from other articles and didn't write out what I asked of you. Now you are misrepresenting that and saying people like John dishonestly quoted things that contradict you. Now you are misquoting me dishonestly so either you are dishonest or corrupt. I think it's probably both.. 

Mathew,

     It's often difficult to decipher your gibberish and YouTube video concept of "dialogue" here.

    This will be my last post to you.

     On review, I had posted some comments about the J6 Committee, (above) and, in response, you posted a video of Adam Schiff, (apparently, talking about Russiagate?)

    When you then asked for a summary of the"report," I thought you were referring to the J6 Committee Report, which Adam Schiff was involved with, and so I took the time to summarize that evidence for you (above.)

    When I learned (from Chris and John) that you had, most likely, requested a summary of the Mueller Report, I then took the time to post an excellent summary for your perusal (above.)

    If you read the summary, you will learn that;

1) Russia actively interfered in our 2016 election on Trump's behalf,

2) Trump's 2016 campaign staff had numerous contacts with Russian assets,

3) Trump's campaign associates repeatedly lied about their Russian contacts,

4) Trump floated pardons for his former campaign associates during Mueller's investigation, and committed multiple other acts of obstruction of justice-- for which Mueller was not permitted to indict him.

5)  Mueller, quite explicitly, did NOT exonerate Trump in his Russiagate investigation, and was repeatedly stonewalled by Trump, Paul Manafort, and others about details of their 2016 contacts with Kremlin assets.

6)   Newly-appointed Attorney General Bill Barr aborted Mueller's investigation, then redacted the Mueller Report and lied about Mueller's findings-- part of an extensive public relations effort to mislead the public about Trump's Russiagate scandal.

Edited January 30, 2023 by W. Niederhut

[W. Niederhut]

As people age, and lose frontal lobe gray matter, their personality disorders often become more obvious... 🤥

Trump Likens Himself to Late, Great Gangster Al Capone (mediaite.com)

Edited January 30, 2023 by W. Niederhut

[Joe Bauer]

17 hours ago, Matthew Koch said:

18 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

 

>>>At this point I am starting to consider you mentally ill, <<< ???

To fellow members of this higher plane JFK truth seeking forum-the best we have on the internet.

Please keep in mind the fact that it is a gift to us all and we need to protect it's mutual respect sanctity.

Not judging anyone here.

Just offering an English gentleman ( now come on Lads ) cooler heads type pat on the shoulder when our brilliant minds heated passions in debating get a little too, shall we say ... personal and carried away?

[W. Niederhut]

10 minutes ago, Joe Bauer said:

To fellow members of this higher plane JFK truth seeking forum-the best we have on the internet.

Please keep in mind the fact that it is a gift to us all and we need to protect it's mutual respect sanctity.

Not judging anyone here.

Just offering an English gentleman ( now come on Lads ) cooler heads type pat on the shoulder when our brilliant minds heated passions in debating get a little too, shall we say ... personal and carried away?

Joe,

     Just to clarify, Mathew Koch was the guy who posted the comment, "I'm starting to consider you mentally ill," in response to my post summarizing the Mueller Report, which Mathew had requested (above.)

[Matthew Koch]

40 minutes ago, Joe Bauer said:

To fellow members of this higher plane JFK truth seeking forum-the best we have on the internet.

Please keep in mind the fact that it is a gift to us all and we need to protect it's mutual respect sanctity.

Not judging anyone here.

Just offering an English gentleman ( now come on Lads ) cooler heads type pat on the shoulder when our brilliant minds heated passions in debating get a little too, shall we say ... personal and carried away?

Thanks for the reminder Joe, you are a good man and I agree. 

I already told Niederhut that I am done with his gas lighting and subterfuge a couple of posts ago. It took around 6 posts of me reminding him and me sharing my sinking suspicions about him to finally get the bulletin reply, with a message that he it will be his last post towards me.

As we see with this latest post of his, he continues to misrepresent the and gaslight as though he isn't being bad actor. So now I will being figuring out how to use the "Ignore" button. Unlike, William I am a man of my word and I will not be responding to him or his obsessive compulsive partisan Ad Homs and misinformation..