Barr's Book Report On The Mueller Report Is In

ok so you’re writing fake news - got it.  Thanks for clarifying.

paulsurovell said:
 No, Mueller didn't say that. I'm saying that.

 just sayin'

paulsurovell said:
 Mueller indicted George Papadopoulos on the basis of his meeting with Joseph Mifsud. 

 Papadopoulos pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI (which took place pre-Mueller).

Other than that, Mueller wasn’t investigating any of the people listed in your post. 

South_Mountaineer said:

paulsurovell said:
 Mueller indicted George Papadopoulos on the basis of his meeting with Joseph Mifsud. 

 Papadopoulos pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI (which took place pre-Mueller).
Other than that, Mueller wasn’t investigating any of the people listed in your post. 

As noted, Papadopoulos was indicted by Mueller based on his meeting with Mifsud. If Mueller didn't investigate Steele, Halper and Turk, he needs to explain why.

The Justice Department has named the U.S. attorney in Connecticut to examine whether FBI officials acted wrongfully when they decided to secretly monitor people affiliated with Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign. Do you favor or oppose appointing a prosecutor to investigate potential abuses at the FBI?

No 38%

https://thehill.com/hilltv/what-americas-thinking/444799-most-americans-support-inquiry-into-fbi-decisions-to-monitor

paulsurovell said:
Even more important, Mueller doesn't want to be asked questions about Joseph Mifsud, Stephan Halper, Azra Turk and Christopher Steele. 

paulsurovell said:
As noted, Papadopoulos was indicted by Mueller based on his meeting with Mifsud. If Mueller didn't investigate Steele, Halper and Turk, he needs to explain why.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that investigating any of them was not within the scope of his investigation. 

paulsurovell said:

South_Mountaineer said:

paulsurovell said:
 Mueller indicted George Papadopoulos on the basis of his meeting with Joseph Mifsud. 

 Papadopoulos pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI (which took place pre-Mueller).
Other than that, Mueller wasn’t investigating any of the people listed in your post. 

As noted, Papadopoulos was indicted by Mueller based on his meeting with Mifsud. If Mueller didn't investigate Steele, Halper and Turk, he needs to explain why.

 He was indicted based on his meeting with the FBI, where he lied. 

ok @paulsurovell please add in your Trump defense here:

https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/22/politics/michael-cohen-search-warrants/index.html

In a search warrant application from July 2017, prosecutors outlined how Cohen started communicating with a Russian-connected company on Election Day. Over the next year, there were more than 1,000 calls and text messages between Cohen and the CEO of that company, Columbus Nova.

In the filing, Mueller's team made it clear that Cohen began contacting the company immediately after the election: "Telephone records show no such text messages or telephone calls between COHEN's cellular telephone and the CEO of Columbus Nova prior to November 8, 2016."

I can understand if the argument is that it's too easy to get a FISA warrant, and that the lack of transparency in the process goes against the intent of the Bill of Rights.  If Trump and his apologists wanted to argue against the FISA process overall, I'd be on board with that.  But there isn't any evidence that the process of getting a FISA warrant was any different in the case of Carter Page than it would have been for anyone else.  One could argue for the repeal of FISA because it violates the spirit of the 4th amendment.  But the idea that it was used illegally against Page is dubious.

jamie said:
ok @paulsurovell please add in your Trump defense here:
https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/22/politics/michael-cohen-search-warrants/index.html
In a search warrant application from July 2017, prosecutors outlined how Cohen started communicating with a Russian-connected company on Election Day. Over the next year, there were more than 1,000 calls and text messages between Cohen and the CEO of that company, Columbus Nova.
In the filing, Mueller's team made it clear that Cohen began contacting the company immediately after the election: "Telephone records show no such text messages or telephone calls between COHEN's cellular telephone and the CEO of Columbus Nova prior to November 8, 2016."

I have a response but I won't share it until you rephrase your question in a respectful manner, i.e., without the "your Trump defense" slur.

ml1 said:
I can understand if the argument is that it's too easy to get a FISA warrant, and that the lack of transparency in the process goes against the intent of the Bill of Rights.  If Trump and his apologists wanted to argue against the FISA process overall, I'd be on board with that.  But there isn't any evidence that the process of getting a FISA warrant was any different in the case of Carter Page than it would have been for anyone else.  One could argue for the repeal of FISA because it violates the spirit of the 4th amendment.  But the idea that it was used illegally against Page is dubious.

 Agreed on the overall Bill of Rights question. The legal issue relates to whether the government informed the judge of exculpatory evidence with regard to the questions surrounding the Steele dossier. As an ex parte procedure the government is obligated to effectively "represent" the surveillance target by providing the judge with all possible exculpatory information in connection with the FISA application. 

This is a conservative source, but it is factual:

https://thefederalist.com/2019/05/21/obama-era-state-department-official-provides-more-evidence-of-fisa-abuse/

nohero said:

paulsurovell said:
Even more important, Mueller doesn't want to be asked questions about Joseph Mifsud, Stephan Halper, Azra Turk and Christopher Steele. 

paulsurovell said:
As noted, Papadopoulos was indicted by Mueller based on his meeting with Mifsud. If Mueller didn't investigate Steele, Halper and Turk, he needs to explain why.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that investigating any of them was not within the scope of his investigation. 

Yeah, well the limb broke and your suggestion went crashing down as soon as you posted this.

South_Mountaineer said:

paulsurovell said:

South_Mountaineer said:

paulsurovell said:
 Mueller indicted George Papadopoulos on the basis of his meeting with Joseph Mifsud. 

 Papadopoulos pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI (which took place pre-Mueller).
Other than that, Mueller wasn’t investigating any of the people listed in your post. 

As noted, Papadopoulos was indicted by Mueller based on his meeting with Mifsud. If Mueller didn't investigate Steele, Halper and Turk, he needs to explain why.

 He was indicted based on his meeting with the FBI, where he lied. 

 Good example of a non-sequitur. Thank you.

paulsurovell said:

nohero said:

paulsurovell said:
Even more important, Mueller doesn't want to be asked questions about Joseph Mifsud, Stephan Halper, Azra Turk and Christopher Steele. 

paulsurovell said:
As noted, Papadopoulos was indicted by Mueller based on his meeting with Mifsud. If Mueller didn't investigate Steele, Halper and Turk, he needs to explain why.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that investigating any of them was not within the scope of his investigation. 

Yeah, well the limb broke and your suggestion went crashing down as soon as you posted this.

 Silly me, I bothered to read Mueller's report.

paulsurovell said:
I have a response but I won't share it until you rephrase your question in a respectful manner, i.e., without the "your Trump defense" slur.

 ok, so it will be in no defense of Trump?  How is that a slur?  Your comments on this thread have helped to vindicate Trump based on the Mueller report.  I take it then that the actions of Cohen have zero to do with Trump then - correct?

Here's the rephrased question: What is your opinion of the 1,000+ contacts between Cohen and Russian oligarchs?

paulsurovell said:
 Good example of a non-sequitur. Thank you.

 That's a terrible example of a non-sequitur, actually. A good example would be if South_Mountaineer posted "He was married to a fish." Instead he reiterated why Papadopoulos was actually indicted. He didn't get arrested for meeting Mifsud, he got arrested for lying to the FBI.

Overview 1. The defendant, GEORGE PAPADOPOULOS, who served as a foreign policy advisor for the presidential campaign of Donald J. Trump (the "Campaign"), made material false statements and material omissions during an interview with the Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBI'.) that took place on January 27, 2017. At the time ofthe interview, the FBI had an open investigation into the Russian government's efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election, including the nature of any links between individuals associated with the Campaign and the Russian government, and whether there was any coordination between the Campaign and Russia's efforts. The FBI opened and coordinated the investigation in Washington, D.C. 

Emphasis mine.

Also Paul - please let us know where or when you are going to start a "No war with Iran" thread.  Seems to me like that would be at the top of your list.  I look forward to that one - seriously.

ridski said:

paulsurovell said:
 Good example of a non-sequitur. Thank you.

 That's a terrible example of a non-sequitur, actually. A good example would be if South_Mountaineer posted "He was married to a fish."

If it's his second marriage, I offer my congratulations.

"Anon, pescatore!"

DaveSchmidt said:
If it's his second marriage, I offer my congratulations.
"Anon, pescatore!"

 Also a good example of a non-sequitur.

Home come no one ever says something is a sequitur? It's always "non". So negative.

jamie said:

paulsurovell said:
I have a response but I won't share it until you rephrase your question in a respectful manner, i.e., without the "your Trump defense" slur.

 ok, so it will be in no defense of Trump?  How is that a slur?  Your comments on this thread have helped to vindicate Trump based on the Mueller report.  I take it then that the actions of Cohen have zero to do with Trump then - correct?
Here's the rephrased question: What is your opinion of the 1,000+ contacts between Cohen and Russian oligarchs?

 Please explain what you mean by "1,000+ contacts between Cohen and Russian oligarchs?

In your original question you said

jamie said:Over the next year, there were more than 1,000 calls and text messages between Cohen and the CEO of that company, Columbus Nova.

Are you saying that the CEO of Columbus Nova is "Russian oligarch?"

If so, where did you get that from?

Here's what Columbus Nova says:

Columbus Nova Statement In Response to Inaccurate Media Reports

Columbus Nova is an investment management company solely owned and controlled by Americans. After the inauguration, the firm hired Michael Cohen as a business consultant regarding potential sources of capital and potential investments in real estate and other ventures. Reports that Viktor Vekselberg used Columbus Nova as a conduit for payments to Michael Cohen are false. The claim that Viktor Vekselberg was involved or provided any funding for Columbus Nova's engagement of Michael Cohen is patently untrue. Neither Viktor Vekselberg nor anyone else outside of Columbus Nova was involved in the decision to hire Cohen or provided funding for his engagement.

Additionally, contrary to recent reports, Columbus Nova LLC and Renova U.S. Management, LLC (operated under the Columbus Nova umbrella) are not now, nor have ever been, owned by any foreign entity or person. In fact, since its founding nearly 20 years ago, Columbus Nova has been and continues to be 100% owned by Americans.

As reported in May 2018 by The New York Times, the Renova Group is Columbus Nova’s biggest client. When Columbus Nova formed a management company under the name Renova U.S. Management, its largest client at the time was a Renova Group company. Throughout its existence, Columbus Nova has managed assets on behalf of Renova Group companies and other clients. Columbus Nova itself is not now, and has never been, owned by any foreign entity or person including Viktor Vekselberg or the Renova Group. The same is true with regard to all investment management companies under the Columbus Nova umbrella.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/05/17/russian-oligarch-viktor-vekselberg-chairs-nonprofit-backed-by-us-firms-politicians.html

ridski said:

paulsurovell said:
 Good example of a non-sequitur. Thank you.

 That's a terrible example of a non-sequitur, actually. A good example would be if South_Mountaineer posted "He was married to a fish." Instead he reiterated why Papadopoulos was actually indicted. He didn't get arrested for meeting Mifsud, he got arrested for lying to the FBI.
Overview 1. The defendant, GEORGE PAPADOPOULOS, who served as a foreign policy advisor for the presidential campaign of Donald J. Trump (the "Campaign"), made material false statements and material omissions during an interview with the Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBI'.) that took place on January 27, 2017. At the time ofthe interview, the FBI had an open investigation into the Russian government's efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election, including the nature of any links between individuals associated with the Campaign and the Russian government, and whether there was any coordination between the Campaign and Russia's efforts. The FBI opened and coordinated the investigation in Washington, D.C. 
Emphasis mine.

 I'll go with this.

drummerboy said:
Home come no one ever says something is a sequitur? It's always "non". So negative.

 That's what I meant to say.  

drummerboy said:
Home come no one ever says something is a sequitur? It's always "non". So negative.

 Sure they do, only the phrase is "segue." Same root, slightly different word.

drummerboy said:
Home come no one ever says something is a sequitur? It's always "non". So negative.

I'm plussed.

paulsurovell said:

jamie said:
ok @paulsurovell please add in your Trump defense here:
https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/22/politics/michael-cohen-search-warrants/index.html
In a search warrant application from July 2017, prosecutors outlined how Cohen started communicating with a Russian-connected company on Election Day. Over the next year, there were more than 1,000 calls and text messages between Cohen and the CEO of that company, Columbus Nova.
In the filing, Mueller's team made it clear that Cohen began contacting the company immediately after the election: "Telephone records show no such text messages or telephone calls between COHEN's cellular telephone and the CEO of Columbus Nova prior to November 8, 2016."

I have a response but I won't share it until you rephrase your question in a respectful manner, i.e., without the "your Trump defense" slur.

So if we insult you, you shut up? Was it really that easy all this time?

basil said:

paulsurovell said:

jamie said:
ok @paulsurovell please add in your Trump defense here:
https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/22/politics/michael-cohen-search-warrants/index.html
In a search warrant application from July 2017, prosecutors outlined how Cohen started communicating with a Russian-connected company on Election Day. Over the next year, there were more than 1,000 calls and text messages between Cohen and the CEO of that company, Columbus Nova.
In the filing, Mueller's team made it clear that Cohen began contacting the company immediately after the election: "Telephone records show no such text messages or telephone calls between COHEN's cellular telephone and the CEO of Columbus Nova prior to November 8, 2016."

I have a response but I won't share it until you rephrase your question in a respectful manner, i.e., without the "your Trump defense" slur.

So if we insult you, you shut up? Was it really that easy all this time?

 Now that is clever.   

Aaron Mate is perhaps the best informed journalist on Russiagate. This tweet is part of a larger thread in which he expresses the hope that Barr's investigation will reveal why the Russia investigation started.

Article?  Proof?  Or is this Aaron's speculation?  It's a weird tweet to post.  Usually you have more substance then this.

jamie said:
Article?  Proof?  Or is this Aaron's speculation?  It's a weird tweet to post.  Usually you have more substance then this.

 It's his opinion.