![]() |
Maggie's FarmWe are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for. |
Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page
Categories
QuicksearchLinks
Blog Administration |
Tuesday, July 15. 2025Tuesday morning links
Justice Jackson Illustrates Problem With Diversity Hires Lawsuit Incoming: AOC Directly Calls Trump A "Rapist" Trump Admin Cooking On Major Criminal Conspiracy Case Against Russiagate Plotters: Report New Poll Shows Majority of Dems Still Believe Trump Russia Collusion Hoax Was Real When Toilets Become Tyranny: Debbie’s Brave Stand Against Plumbing Is it wrong to arrest ‘non-criminal’ illegals? Former NY Governor Criticized Comrade Mamdani, and Then This Happened Democrats Willing To Shut Down Government Over $9 Billion In Cuts To Foreign Aid And PBS Obama to Dems in 'Fetal Positions': 'Less Whining,' 'Toughen Up' Trackbacks
Trackback specific URI for this entry
No Trackbacks
Comments
Display comments as
(Linear | Threaded)
re New Poll Shows Majority of Dems Still Believe Trump Russia Collusion Hoax Was Real
HRC smiles . . . QUOTE: New Poll Shows Majority of Dems Still Believe Trump Russia Collusion Hoax Was Real ... Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report revealed that ... no evidence was found that Trump had colluded with the Kremlin to win the election. That is incorrect. Mueller explicitly did not consider collusion, but only criminal conspiracy. QUOTE: {Trump} says he’s been fully exonerated That is incorrect. Mueller detailed evidence of obstruction, but he was bound by Department of Justice regulations not to indict the president. QUOTE: The review, conducted by members of the CIA’s Directorate of Analysis, found that the ICA had been corrupted by then-CIA Director John Brennan, then-FBI Director James Comey and then-Director of National Intelligence James Clapper. The report did not claim corruption, and largely upheld the findings of the Intelligence Community. In any case, it's doubtful Putin would have engaged in a direct conspiracy with Trump: Trump would be a terrible conspirator because of his mercurial nature and verbigeration. Furthermore, conspiracy wasn't necessary as long as their goals aligned, the bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee finding that the Trump campaign welcomed Russian interference in the election. The intelligence community was incapable of analyzing the laptop crimes of Hillary or Junior Biden. What a sad ass group of government employees.
The best news is the admin state being pruned down. They are not the best nor the brightest. QUOTE: Lawsuit Incoming: AOC Directly Calls Trump A "Rapist" So did the judge in the case, drawing a distinction between rape defined in New York law, and rape as the term is commonly used. In this case, Trump was found to have (at least) digitally penetrated his victim against her will. QUOTE: ABC to pay ABC settled because there was a threat that Trump would abuse his power as president by retaliating to prevent a proposed merger worth billions. It's very doubtful such a lawsuit could succeed against AOC, were she willing to fight it in court. and sometimes it's just the thought of what discovery might uncover.
We are all quite familiar with New York and D.C. law, or is that lawlessness.
We are all hoping that AOC and Omar become the new 'hope and change' candidates. If I were to accept a great job in the Slovak Republic that paid me under the table, but I got caught, I would expect them to deport me with very little ceremony or opportunity to contest it.
I find it hard to believe there are children in Alligator Alcatraz.
California is in the process of passing a law that would allow LA to "take" the properties that were destroyed by the wildfire and use those properties to build "affordable" housing. There is something very odd about both the LA fire and the Lahaina fire from the very first minutes to everything that has happened since. If the conspiracy theories aren't true the local and state governments have been working overtime to make them appear to be true. These two events (and perhaps others that weren't obvious at first) appear to be a version of the "great replacement theory". Both the LA and Lahaina government are bending over backwards to prevent the legal owners of these now empty lots from ever rebuilding. It would appear the intent is to flood them with legal and governmental costs until the government wears them down and they just give up and walk away from their property.
This implies that there was a conspiracy and that the highly suspicious fires were anything but some accidental or naturally caused event. That perhaps even other well known "wildfires" were planned, perhaps intentionally started, for the purpose of making large amounts of prime land available to either government or private investment to "take". Like the fire in Paradise Ca. Or the fires in Oregon in 2020. Even the fire now destroying the North Rim of the Grand Canyon is suspect. Other less well known fires could also have been intentionally set for these exact same reasons. "Mueller explicitly did not consider collusion, but only criminal conspiracy."
I'd call this a lie, but I suspect you're ignorant enough to believe it's true. From Rod Rosenstein's letter appointing Meuller as Special Counsel (the formatting or spelling might be weird because it's a cut and paste from the NYT posting of the original PDF): (b) The Special Counsel is authorized to conduct the investigation confinned by then-FBIDirector James 8. Corney in testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee onIntelligence on March 20, 2017, including: (i) any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump; and (ii) any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation; and (iii) any other matters within the scope of 28 C.F.R. § 600.4(a).(c) If the Special Counsel believes it is necessary and appropriate, the Special Counsel isauthorized to prosecute federal crimes arising from the investigation of these matters.(d) Sections 600.4 through 600. l 0 of Title 28 of the Code of Federal Regulations areapplicable to the Special Counsel. SK: I'd call this a lie, but I suspect you're ignorant enough to believe it's true.[/i]
Suspect you believe what you say is true. Ignorance, however, has a well-known cure. Robert Mueller, testifying before House Judiciary Committee: “We did not address collusion, which is not a legal term; rather we focused on whether the evidence was sufficient to charge any member of the campaign with taking part in a criminal conspiracy, and there was not.". Wow. Thanks for that. Your being reduced to such an argument is comical.
Meuller was tasked by Rosenstein in very plain language, which any third grader can understand, to investigate (pay particular attn to the words "coordination between". Look up the phrase if you need to): any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump Pathetic. Do you ever wonder why no one takes anything you say seriously? Do you care that no one does? Z's Claim: Mueller explicitly did not consider collusion, but only criminal conspiracy.
SK: You lie! Mueller in his own words: “We did not address collusion, which is not a legal term; rather we focused on whether the evidence was sufficient to charge any member of the campaign with taking part in a criminal conspiracy, and there was not." Not sure how else to help you. I never said you lied. I was generous and assumed you were ignorant of what Meuller's assigned task was, and I provided you with the language copied and pasted from the original document.
Now it's clear that my assigning it to ignorance was too generous--you're just too stupid to understand that coordination and collusion can be synonyms. I don't need help. I read the letter from Rosenstein to Meuller. Unlike you, if you even bothered to read it, I understood it. But thanks for the offer, little buddy.
#6.1.1.1.1
SK
on
2025-07-16 12:52
(Reply)
SK: ... Meuller's assigned task was ...
The assigned task wasn't our claim, but what Mueller actually stated he did. Not sure why you would take exception to something that is obviously true. SK: I read the letter from Rosenstein to Meuller. Good. Then you should realize that Mueller was further constrained by Title 28 of the Code of Federal Regulations, which empower the Special Counsel only insofar as to investigate criminal activities. As Mueller explained, "collusion" is not a legal term. Our original claim stands.
#6.1.1.1.1.1
Zachriel
on
2025-07-16 13:12
(Reply)
One more time. Tasked to investigate:
any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump Your original claim is a deflection and a mischaracterization of what happened in fact, playing silly ass word games to do it. But keep it up, it shows people who you are. SK: One more time.
Our original claim was accurate. Mueller explicitly stated he did not address collusion. We further explained why Rosenstein's letter of appointment does not change this fact. You, on the other hand, did not respond to either point; neither Mueller's direct statement nor why Rosenstein's letter of appointment does not change this fact. One more time for the little guy in the front row playing gotcha with schoolgirl word games:
any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump The letter clearly and directly refutes your original statement. No other response needs to be made by me or anyone else, and your demanding one is yet more deflection and makes an assumption that your statement isn't ridiculous on its face. You need to pick your fights better. SK: The letter clearly and directly refutes your original statement.
Any instructions Rosenstein gave to Mueller have to be consistent with the Code of Federal Regulations, which Rosenstein made explicit in his letter. You have repeatedly ignored this. Furthermore, Mueller explicitly stated he did not address collusion. Consequently, even if Rosenstein had directed him to do so, Mueller didn't. You have repeatedly ignored this. Our original statement was accurate. any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump
You have repeatedly ignored this.
#7.1.1.1.1
SK
on
2025-07-16 15:44
(Reply)
SK: any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump
In fact, we repeatedly addressed it, and you have repeatedly ignored it:
2. Even if Rosenstein's appointment had explicitly authorized Mueller to investigate even non-criminal links and/or coordination, Mueller testified that he did not.
#7.1.1.1.1.1
Zachriel
on
2025-07-16 15:59
(Reply)
I've amply demonstrated that your original statement was an untruth, and did so by cutting and pasting from the original letter authorizing Meuller and the investigation.
Whether your untrue statement was made out of ignorance, stupidity, or perfidy, I won't speculate any further on. You're really embarrassing yourself on this one, little fella.
#7.1.1.1.1.1.1
SK
on
2025-07-16 16:05
(Reply)
SK: I've amply demonstrated that your original statement was an untruth, and did so by cutting and pasting from the original letter authorizing Meuller and the investigation.
We've amply demonstrated that your original objection was an untruth, and did so by cutting and pasting from the original letter authorizing Meuller and the investigation. See note #1 above. You have yet to respond to either point raised.
#7.1.1.1.1.1.1.1
Zachriel
on
2025-07-16 16:27
(Reply)
I guess I misspoke before, so I'll clarify:
You're embarrassing yourself more than usual on this one, little fella.
#7.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1
SK
on
2025-07-16 16:34
(Reply)
Mueller never ran that investigation other than as a reliable bureaucrat for the Democratic party. Weissman, a partisan politician, ran the investigation. Mueller's performance before Congress showed he had all the mental acuity of Joe Biden. All of Mueller's investigators, each and every one of them, 'accidentally' erased all their government cell phone information when they were requested to turn them in. Each should have been prosecuted for destruction of evidence. Russia, Russia, Russia is, and was always, a hoax designed to keep Trump from exposing illegal spying on his campaign and administration.
|