There's a difference between being stupid and not knowing that something is illegal. It's not like campaign finance laws are something one should know as a matter of common sense. — Michael

I read a story at the beginning of last year about the substance of the Trump campaign’s interactions with Russian agencies and agents. Basically the thrust of the story was that the Trump campaign was fundamentally shambolic and amateurish, and that nobody in the campaign actually believed Trump would win (which is also documented in Wolff’s book.) So their approach was completely unsystematic and off-the-cuff. So Russian links were part of that, but it didn’t amount to a conscious conspiracy. It was just opportunistic and organic; people on the team had Russian connections, Trump was indeed pursuing the Moscow tower deal (all the time lying about it).

Had Trump and his team been professional or diligent (I read a quote that ‘Donald doesn’t do “diligence”‘) then they would have knocked back any approaches from Russia or anything that suggested it. But they let it slip, because Trump and his team were sloppy. And what with Putin’s documented interference and meddling, it really did look like there might have been improper contact, and it had to be investigated.

So I think the full extent of the co-operation might be in the open. Maybe it doesn’t amount to a criminal conspiracy, but with what is already known, it is certainly a disgrace and certainly grounds for impeachment. But Trump has lowered the standards so much that he can probably just continue to bullshit his way through it. We’ll see.

Posted to get the above to show

Isn't this a difference between negligence and an intentional crime? (negligence can still be criminal).

EDIT: apparently obstruction charges require intent to actually be established.

I think you're being endlessly charitable by calling it a "slip" and "sloppy."

There's a fine line between legal and illegal and Trump&Co just barrel on through life on that line like a herd of crazed rhinos.

Never mistake me for being supportive of Trump, but I think my reading is consistent with the conclusions of the Report. I don’t think Trump picked up the phone to Putin but I also think what is already in the public domain is ample ground for (long overdue) impeachment.

Glenn Greenwald: Mueller "obliterated" Russia conspiracy theory.

https://theintercept.com/2019/04/18/robert-mueller-did-not-merely-reject-the-trumprussia-conspiracy-theories-he-obliterated-them/

We are being threatened in a very distinct way. The infrastructure of the society is under threat — the procedures that shape government, the credibility of information, the privacy rules that make deliberation possible. And though the Chinese government does not play a big role here, it represents a similar sort of threat — to our intellectual infrastructure, the intellectual property rights that organize innovation.

It is as if somebody is inserting acids into a body that eats away at the ligaments and the tendons.

These forces are motivated by self-interest, but their common feature is an operational nihilism. They are trying to sow disorder at the foundation of society. The goal is not really to convert anybody to a cause; it is to create cynicism and disruption that will open up the space to grab what you want to grab. They rig the system and then tell everybody, “The system is rigged!” And therefore, all values are suspended. Everything is permitted.
...

The system more or less held this time. But that’s just because people around Trump often refused to do what he told them to do. And we happened to have Robert Mueller, who seems to be a fair referee.

The Justice Department has not been defended from political assault. William Barr’s news conference before the report’s release eroded any claim to impartiality and trustworthiness.

Trump doesn’t seem to have any notion of loyalty to an office. All power in his eye is personal power, and the government is there to serve his Sun God self. He’ll continue to trample the proper systems of government.

It’s easy to recognize when you are attacked head-on. But the U.S. is being attacked from below, at the level of the foundations we take for granted 1. — David Brooks

I don’t think Trump picked up the phone to Putin — Wayfarer

That's right, before 2015 Putin wouldn't have time to speak to a egoistic American millionaire.Now it's a bit different.

Glenn Greenwald: Mueller "obliterated" Russia conspiracy theory. — fishfry

I assume Assange, Glenn's old buddy, thinks the same.

Although the investigation established that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome, and that the Campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stoalen and released through Russian efforts, the investigation did not establish that member of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.

Yep, quite a Trumpian exoneration.

Had Trump and his team been professional or diligent (I read a quote that ‘Donald doesn’t do “diligence”‘) then they would have knocked back any approaches from Russia or anything that suggested it. But they let it slip, because Trump and his team were sloppy. — Wayfarer

Really? Why?

The argument that they were just sloppy doesn't hold.

They were trying to build a Trump building even as the election campaign was going on. The simple reason I find is that Trump and his inner circle was totally ignorant about the fact that the FBI keeps taps on what foreign intelligence services do in America. They couldn't fathom that it would be different to mingle with Putin and the Russians than some American billionaire and a Super Pac. That isn't just being sloppy.

It's similar as if we would start believing that the Hollywood acces -tape were just "Locker room talk" that had nothing to do with Trump's actual conduct with women. Like that the multitude of accusations don't matter, because there is the possibility of Trump just made it up.

They were trying to build a Trump building even as the election campaign was going on. — ssu

The fact that they were hiding this, at that time, indicates that there was not complete ignorance.

I assume Assange, Glenn's old buddy, thinks the same. — ssu

Isn't that what you high-toned philosophers call an ad hominem? If you chose to, you could read what Greenwald wrote and challenge his substantive points. But why bother? Mueller found no collusion and no obstruction, and for some bizarre reason all the TDS True Believers are doubling down on their delusion. It's something to behold.

Mueller found no collusion and no obstruction — fishfry

You complain about people not reading Greenwald but Mueller had described several instances of what could be considered obstruction and yet this is your take away. Have you read it? It's because a sitting president cannot be indicted that Mueller doesn't reach conclusions with respect to obstruction. Here's a nice visual that shows at least 4 instances described by Mueller are basically hard evidence of obstruction:

Lawfare Blog

Isn't that what you high-toned philosophers call an ad hominem? If you chose to, you could read what Greenwald wrote and challenge his substantive points. But why bother? — fishfry

Oh I've listened to Mr Greenwald. Not only commenting this issue, but also how Mr. Greenwald defends the Venezuelan regime and how it hasn't done much wrong, but how evil Americans are the real culprit of everything bad that has happened in the country.

Basically Mr Greenwald is also a pure example of how a sensationalist journalist has to, very unfortunately, pick his side and after that turns into a supporter of the side he or she backs up. The most unfortunate thing is that it's not actually the 'side' that supports the journalist, it's the obnoxious followers that create the fan base for these journalists. A Conspiracy whistleblower is sucked into appeasing the conspircacy crowd. So Mr. Greenwald assisted Edward Snowden and published Snowden's findings, which then forced Snowden to seek refuge from Russia. And then Greenwald was the instant hit with the conspiracy theorists and especially with the Alex Jones conspiracy crowd also. And this then easily shows what kind of journalism Glenn goes after:

From its hawkish immigration crackdown, to its support of Saudi Arabia even after details of Washington Post columnist Jamal Khashoggi’s murder came to light, the Trump administration has mired itself in countless scandals that a younger Greenwald might have sought to expose. But the gadfly who now calls Brazil his home has reserved his powder for attacks on the Democratic Party and MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow, in a quest to draw “attention to things that were being overlooked.”

“Obviously the people who engage in money laundering and tax fraud and the like belong in prison, and I am happy Paul Manafort is there,” said Greenwald. But The Intercept founder says there are “tons” of Trump’s policies he agrees with, such as the president’s stance on Russia and NATO.

The simple reason why it is so is that people simply cannot tolerate that somebody would be critical of both sides. Greenwald would be then a "sell off", who would "betray the cause" if he would be critical in this case and simply would loose his audience. And then there wouldn't be any money. That's how it goes.

So how does Glen Greenwald answer the allegations of Russian involvement. With a tight rope performance, I would say:

On the question of whether the Russians are behind the hacks, I think the officials provided a lot of detail about who did it and how they know. Even though there are no underlying documents, you have to essentially believe that Mueller invented it or fabricated it, which I do not think is likely. I do regard the Mueller indictment as some evidence, not conclusive, but at least some evidence finally that the Russians are involved, but that doesn’t say the extent to which Putin was involved, let alone the extent to which Trump officials are criminally implicated.

And later,

I don’t think there can be any question that the most significant finding has to be about the allegations that kicked off the entire saga almost three years ago, which was the two-pronged conspiracy theory that Donald Trump worked with, coordinated, collaborated and conspired with the Russian government to interfere in the 2016 election and that Donald Trump is captive to Vladimir Putin as a result of a variety of blackmail, leverage and other forms of links that allow the Kremlin to dictate to the White House what it is that they’re supposed to do.

You complain about people not reading Greenwald but Mueller had described several instances of what could be considered obstruction and yet this is your take away. Have you read it? It's because a sitting president cannot be indicted that Mueller doesn't reach conclusions with respect to obstruction. Here's a nice visual that shows at least 4 instances described by Mueller are basically hard evidence of obstruction: — Benkei

Great answer.

Oh I've listened to Mr Greenwald. — ssu

Several more paragraphs of Greenwald bashing hardly bear on the topic at hand.

You complain about people not reading Greenwald but Mueller had described several instances of what could be considered obstruction and yet this is your take away. Have you read it? It's because a sitting president cannot be indicted that Mueller doesn't reach conclusions with respect to obstruction. Here's a nice visual that shows at least 4 instances described by Mueller are basically hard evidence of obstruction: — Benkei

I've decided to stop arguing with this point. I think you should keep it up all the way to November 2020. Reporters on the ground in Iowa and other early primary states report that nobody cares about Russiagate. All the Dems can do is get Trump reelected. Now I'm no fan of Mr. Trump. But compared to what the Dems are offering these days? Not much of a choice, but ... like I say ... keep it up till election day. See how it works out for you.

I've decided to stop arguing with this point. - like I say ... keep it up till election day. See how it works out for you. — fishfry

How does it work for a Dutchman?

Ah! I get it. The retreat to "every political issue is just campaign babble"-argument. Yes, there cannot be any, absolutely any other reason for anyone, especially foreigners, to talk about this issue other than in the realm of the next presidential elections.

Silly season is coming soon up.

Several more paragraphs of Greenwald bashing hardly bear on the topic at hand. — fishfry

Bashing? My point is that journalists have to pick their sides. Not always, but especially when the issue is a hugely political one. When they don't behave so, it's actually their readers/followers and fanbase that are the most wrathful, hence the readers are the ones forcing the journalist to pick one side and the narrative of that side.

Mueller found no collusion and no obstruction — fishfry

This is patently not true. The numerous links between the Trump campaign team and Russian operatives were noted and had already given rise to numerous indictments and jail sentences. Trump's campaign manager and his lawyer are or will be both in jail soon (his lawyer for telling lies on his client's behest.)

As to obstruction, Mueller pointedly did not absolve Trump of that, saying that 'while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, neither does it exonerate him.' As many others have observed, Mueller laid out 'a road map to impeachment' i.e. he documented sufficient wrong-doing for Congress to pursue it.

So repeating Trump's delusional mantra - he hadn't even read any of the report when he said it! - cuts no ice here.

Just saying, impeachment is looking better and better every day. According to the Muller report, there's ample evidence of gross negligence and severe incompetence (where the only question mark left at the end of "obstruction" is the intentionality clause. He ordered his staff to "do crazy shit", and but for their unwillingness to carry out his wishes, would have since triggered a constitutional crisis that neither Barr nor Kavanaugh could spin.

Even if it will take a miracle in the Senate, even if it will cause a bunch of headaches for Pelosi, and even if it will create more division in the short term, impeaching the Teflon Don is the healthiest thing for both America and the world.

Impeachment is about the only thing that can restore global faith in American competence and leadership.

Just saying, impeachment is looking better and better every day. — VagabondSpectre

Don't forget, Republicans moved to impeach Nixon, a Republican (but he resigned before proceedings started). If there were one or more honest, er, renegade Republicans who signalled that they would support impeachment, then I think it would happen. But in the current circumstances it would turn into a massive brawl of the World's Biggest Ego vs. Everyone Else. A shitfight to end all shitfights. Therefore, I agree with Pelosi.

But just imagine the catharsis once the last log has fallen.

When the brown mist clears and we start washing away the excrement, we're going to find new appreciation for clean houses and the merits of house-cleaning (and we will resolve never to repeat this shitty affair).

I used to think Trump would resign before impeachment, but now that he's quadrupled down I just don't know anymore. Somehow we all continue to underestimate his stupidity (and his luck, OR our own stupidity), which makes me think any stupid thing is now possible.

Here's a side effect of the Muller report (which is itself a side-effect of Trump). From Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov to the students of Moscow's diplomatic academy:

"Unfortunately, our Western partners led by the United States do not want to agree on common approaches to solving problems," Lavrov continued, accusing Washington and its allies of trying to "preserve their centuries-old domination in world affairs despite objective trends in forming a polycentric world order." He argued that these efforts were "contrary to the fact that now, purely economically and financially, the United States can no longer—singlehandedly or with its closest allies—resolve all issues in the global economy and world affairs.

"In order to artificially retain their dominance, to regain indisputable positions, they employ various methods of pressure and blackmail to coerce economically and through the use of information,". — Sergey Lavrov

On the one hand Trump believes that Russia supports him, and on the other hand Russia uses his buffoonery to question the ability of the U.S to remain the political leader of the free world.

I don't know much about Chinese politics, but I also would wager that electing a president for life is somehow a response to the shock of Trump's victory. He makes it look like it's better to continue sleeping with the devil you know than to risk electing a more ridiculous devil.

And that, unfortunately, is a death knell for democracy.

I don't think Trump had *any idea* what the Mueller report was about or what the contents were at the time he announced that it had 'totally and completely exonerated him'. He's notorious for not wanting (or being able to) read anything longer than a sentence. He never sits down and thinks anything through or analyses it, he only reacts to what he sees on television. So when William Barr published his whitewash, Trump said 'that's it, all over and done'. And at the time, he really believed it! It wasn't until the rest of the content began to appear on Fox News that he realised he hadn't really being absolved. So he reacts predictably, by insulting everyone, 'shooting witnesses', railing against unfair treatment - and the Supporters just echo it. It's beyond pathetic.

I still think (and hope) it's possible that Trump is forced out or chooses to resign, but absent that, it's desperately important that the Democratic Party selects the best possible candidate and runs the best possible campaign. (One thing to take solace in, is that there are now quite a few conservatives in the media (including ex-Republican party members) who are throwing their weight behind getting Trump out (if you haven't already, you've got to read Rick Wilson's columns on the Daily Beast.))

On the one hand Trump believes that Russia supports him, and on the other hand Russia uses his buffoonery to question the ability of the U.S to remain the political leader of the free world. — VagabondSpectre

It seems obvious to me that Russian wanted to see Trump elected because they knew he would be an utter disaster for US politics. And they got that right!

It's beyond pathetic — Wayfarer

It's so pathetic that it might not even be criminal in the sense that a racoon cannot be found guilty of arson or kidnapping. Trump is the racoon, but to be fair, a racoon would honestly make a much better president.

So, legally he's too stupid for mea culpa (the ability to understand wrongdoing), which leaves the U.S in the unenviable situation of having a flailing toddler as the commander in chief. At this point it's as much about national dignity as anything else, and in so far as the U.S represents and leads the western world, it becomes a question of western dignity.

Ye gads... What have we become?

I still think (and hope) it's possible that Trump is forced out or chooses to resign, but absent that, it's desperately important that the Democratic Party selects the best possible candidate and runs the best possible campaign. (One thing to take solace in, is that there are now quite a few conservatives in the media (including ex-Republican party members) who are throwing their weight behind getting Trump out (if you haven't already, you've got to read Rick Wilson's columns/ — Wayfarer

I truly believed he would be out of office by now. His campaign was an ever intensifying circus (the before times, the long-long ago), so I intuitively felt that if elected, his presidency would also be an ever intensifying extension of it (If he's a master of anything, it's circus rings). "How many years could Americans endure?" I thought... One, maybe two years tops?

Alack, alas...

It seems obvious to me that Russian wanted to see Trump elected because they knew he would be an utter disaster for US politics. And they got that right! — Wayfarer

The irony of it all... The most zealously patriotic do the most damage to national interests...

Are we not entertained?

This is patently not true. — Wayfarer

It's astonishing me how many people are hanging on to this. Let's just say I disagree.

It's astonishing me how many people are hanging on to this. Let's just say I disagree. — fishfry

Muller did find sufficient evidence for obstruction, but stopped short of stating that as a conclusion because under a certain precedent, a sitting president ostensibly has the privilege to obstruct, therefore he left it to congress to decide.

Muller explicitly stated in the report that the report does not exonerate the president of obstruction (if he found no obstruction, this would not have been stated). He did clear Trump of collusion, but not obstruction.

Ah! I get it. The retreat to "every political issue is just campaign babble"-argument. — ssu

No, it's just pointless. Some people are really dug in on this point and it's not productive to argue with them. Impeachment and collusion and obstruction are not the issues on which the election will be decided. If the Dems keep up the Russiagate crusade, we will all find out on the evening of election day whether that was a good strategy. Between now and then I prefer not to discuss it since it's so pointless. Mueller released his report, no collusion, no obstruction. Look, we all think OJ killed his ex-wife but they had a trial and he was found not guilty and most of us have moved on.

ps -- I'll stipulate that some people think Mueller found obstruction. I realize this is the Mueller thread so I shouldn't be here unless I'm prepared to argue all things Mueller. I can see why it was wrong of me to decline to engage in this particular thread. Personally I had enough of Mueller and Russiagate. It's my opinion that I'm not alone in that. But such people should not engage in Mueller conversations. Ok.

Let's just say I disagree. — fishfry

'Everyone has a right to their own opinions, but not to their own facts' ~ Daniel Patrick Moynihan.

'Everyone has a right to their own opinions, but not to their own facts' ~ Daniel Patrick Moynihan. — Wayfarer

What I see being argued in the news and the blogs and the cable channels are opinions, not facts.

Muller explicitly stated in the report that the report does not exonerate the president of obstruction (if he found no obstruction, this would not have been stated). He did clear Trump of collusion, but not obstruction. — VagabondSpectre

He didn't charge collusion and he didn't charge obstruction. Just like the jury did not exonerate OJ, it merely failed to find him guilty. We all understand that aspect of how American courts work. Being found not guilty is not the same as being found innocent.

On the issue of whether Mueller found obstruction but felt he could not act because Trump is a sitting president, I hear many different learned opinions about that. I have not personally read the report nor am I a practicing attorney or professor of Constitutional law. I have noticed that opinions on this question seem to correlate with the speaker's political feelings about Trump. I can't concede that what you state is fact; although I don't deny it either. I don't know and don't have enough interest to find out for myself. It truly seems like more of a subjective litmus test for people who already didn't like Trump to start with.