Barr's Book Report On The Mueller Report Is In

ml1 said:

paulsurovell said:
Well per this conversation, I think we can say that wherever he owes money did not cause him to collude with Russia during the election.
And by the way, where does he owe money?

 from wherever Eric Trump was referring when he said the Trump Org had all the funding it needed from Russia. 

 Eric was talking about Russians who were buying condos from Trump in the United States, like they were from all the other big real estate companies. A good example of how mere association with "Russians" is conflated with conspiracy. Russiagate has poisoned our ability to think rationally about Russia and Russians.

Paul - as a nation - should we know whether or not our president had a potential $100 million deal in Moscow during his campaign? 

There is nothing illegal about this business dealing - but it may show a reason as to why he is warm to Russia - no?

Should we be able to see the Mueller report - or are you fine with the Barr summary alone?

paulsurovell said:
 Eric was talking about Russians who were buying condos from Trump in the United States, like they were from all the other big real estate companies. A good example of how mere association with "Russians" is conflated with conspiracy. Russiagate has poisoned our ability to think rationally about Russia and Russians.

 Pay no attention to the Trump apologist. 

So when I got in the cart with Eric,” Dodson says, “as we were setting off, I said, ‘Eric, who’s funding? I know no banks—because of the recession, the Great Recession—have touched a golf course. You know, no one’s funding any kind of golf construction. It’s dead in the water the last four or five years.’ And this is what he said. He said, ‘Well, we don’t rely on American banks. We have all the funding we need out of Russia.’ I said, ‘Really?’ And he said, ‘Oh, yeah. We’ve got some guys that really, really love golf, and they’re really invested in our programs. We just go there all the time.’ Now that was three years ago, so it was pretty interesting.”

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/05/eric-trump-russia-investment-golf-course/amp

paulsurovell said:
The comment is also irrational since we now know that there was no collusion.

 How do we know this? Just because Barr says so or Mueller couldn't find evidence doesn't make it so.

Didn't Jared and Donald Jr. actually meet with Russians? Didn't Manafort share Polling data? At the very least we have to wait to see the actual Report not just a summary.

I suspect that if Mueller had said there was collusion you would still reject it.

paulsurovell said:
 Eric was talking about Russians who were buying condos from Trump in the United States, like they were from all the other big real estate companies. A good example of how mere association with "Russians" is conflated with conspiracy. Russiagate has poisoned our ability to think rationally about Russia and Russians.

you're barking up the wrong tree here.  I haven't been hyping conspiracies, and I've never believed Trump colluded with anyone to "rig" the election.  But on the other hand, your continued implication that Trump's Russian business connections are perfectly innocent is starting to border on the absurd.  The Taj Mahal was already penalized for money laundering.  The partners involved in the Trump Soho include known Russian criminals.  And high end real estate in the U.S. is very likely being used by criminals and despots from all over the world to launder their money.  The notion that Trump is highly corrupt, conflicted, and compromised isn't a conspiracy theory.  The corruption is right under our noses.  The Trump Organization has essentially flaunted its corruption for us all to see.  If anything, it's absurd for anyone to insist Trump doesn't have major conflicts of interest regarding Russian money, whatever its specific source.  

We've been through this before and I actually agree with you on a couple of points.  First, your criticisms of cable news talking heads are spot on.  They have hyped all kinds of crazy theories with no evidence. Secondly, I agree that it appears hawks within the U.S. government have their own vested interests in renewing the Cold War with Russia.

But as I've also written before, the fact that there are hawks trying to poison relations with Russia is not incompatible with Trump being corrupt and compromised.  A lot of evidence points to Trump being a useful idiot for BOTH the hawks in the Kremlin and the hawks in the U.S. who want to prevent a thaw in relations between the two countries.

History’s Great Deceptions-

Trojan Horse

Cardiff Giant

War of the Worlds

Piltdown Man

WMDs

Russian Collusion

U.S. regulators tackle money laundering in the luxury home market

Trump aside, there is concern that the high-end real estate markets, specifically in Miami and NYC are being used to launder money.

ml1 said:
U.S. regulators tackle money laundering in the luxury home market
Trump aside, there is concern that the high-end real estate markets, specifically in Miami and NYC are being used to launder money.

"Second, the significance of the real estate loophole in the U.S. was acknowledged in 2017 by the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) when it issued Geographic Targeting Orders (GTOs) requiring limited beneficial ownership information to be disclosed and reported in some high-end real estate transactions. In fact, FinCEN has noted that “about 30 percent of the transactions covered by the GTOs involve a beneficial owner or purchaser representative that is also the subject of a previous suspicious activity report.’’

The movement of illicit funds throughout the global financial system raises numerous questions regarding the actors who are involved in these money laundering schemes, and where the money is going. This is precisely why the Financial Services Committee is investigating the questionable financing provided to President Trump and the Trump Organization by banks like Deutsche Bank to finance his real estate properties. The Committee is also concerned that Trump-branded and managed condo buildings, for example, have taken millions from suspect Russians or individuals from former Soviet states through cash transactions, some well above the market value and many through shell companies."

https://financialservices.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=402474
 

jamie said:
Paul - as a nation - should we know whether or not our president had a potential $100 million deal in Moscow during his campaign? 
There is nothing illegal about this business dealing - but it may show a reason as to why he is warm to Russia - no?
Should we be able to see the Mueller report - or are you fine with the Barr summary alone?

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Glen Greenwald skewers a Russiagater and also Rachel Maddow

ml1 said:

paulsurovell said:
 Eric was talking about Russians who were buying condos from Trump in the United States, like they were from all the other big real estate companies. A good example of how mere association with "Russians" is conflated with conspiracy. Russiagate has poisoned our ability to think rationally about Russia and Russians.

you're barking up the wrong tree here.  I haven't been hyping conspiracies, and I've never believed Trump colluded with anyone to "rig" the election.  But on the other hand, your continued implication that Trump's Russian business connections are perfectly innocent is starting to border on the absurd.  The Taj Mahal was already penalized for money laundering.  The partners involved in the Trump Soho include known Russian criminals.  And high end real estate in the U.S. is very likely being used by criminals and despots from all over the world to launder their money.  The notion that Trump is highly corrupt, conflicted, and compromised isn't a conspiracy theory.  The corruption is right under our noses.  The Trump Organization has essentially flaunted its corruption for us all to see.  If anything, it's absurd for anyone to insist Trump doesn't have major conflicts of interest regarding Russian money, whatever its specific source.  
We've been through this before and I actually agree with you on a couple of points.  First, your criticisms of cable news talking heads are spot on.  They have hyped all kinds of crazy theories with no evidence. Secondly, I agree that it appears hawks within the U.S. government have their own vested interests in renewing the Cold War with Russia.
But as I've also written before, the fact that there are hawks trying to poison relations with Russia is not incompatible with Trump being corrupt and compromised.  A lot of evidence points to Trump being a useful idiot for BOTH the hawks in the Kremlin and the hawks in the U.S. who want to prevent a thaw in relations between the two countries.

 I agree with this up to the point where you say there's a lot of evidence Trump's a "useful idiot" for Kremlin hawks.

His policies are far more hostile (and insane) toward Russia than any other recent President.

(Partial List)

-- Urging Germany not to buy Russian gas

-- Giving Ukraine lethal weapons

__ New nuclear posture that allow nukes to be launched in response to conventional attacks

-- Expansion of military bases near Russian border: https://www.defensenews.com/smr/nato-priorities/2018/06/25/poking-the-bear-us-air-force-builds-in-russias-backyard/

-- Creation of Space Force

-- Withdrawal from INF that threatens nuclear missiles near Russian border

-- Withdrawal from Iraq Nuclear Deal (Russia was key player)

-- Sanctions on Russian govt, oligarchs and diplomats

-- Closing Russian consulates in US

-- Bombing Russian ally (Syria)

-- Attempt to overthrow Russian ally (Venezuela)

-- This came out a few days ago: https://home.treasury.gov/news/press-releases/sm629?smid=nytcore-ios-share

wow Greenwald is super whiny - another premature conclusion.  I do look forward to hearing him debate after the report is released.

jamie said:
wow Greenwald is super whiny - another premature conclusion.  I do look forward to hearing him debate after the report is released.

 He's super right.

about what?  What in the Mueller report did he not agree with?

nan said:
Glen Greenwald skewers a Russiagater and also Rachel Maddow

Sensational. Thanks for posting this. Going viral.

jamie said:
wow Greenwald is super whiny - another premature conclusion.  I do look forward to hearing him debate after the report is released.

 Jamie, do you believe the NY Times headline:

"Mueller Finds No Trump-Russia Conspiracy"

this is like a three-way circle jerk. I'll let the audience figure out the participants.

Oh, indictments are coming out of this circus. Make no mistake.  Just not the kind that may be popular in these parts.

paulsurovell said:

nohero said:

paulsurovell said:
The mainstream media -- MSNBC, CNN, The NY Times, WaPo and others -- scammed their audiences, just like they did in 2003. The WMDs did not exist. Collusion did not happen.


Once again, a basic principle was ignored -- don't trust media that bans/censors dissenting voices, because they're doing it to suppress the truth.

"Collusion" was only one element of the Trump narrative.  There's the general entanglement with Russia and other foreign elements, the self-enrichment and "emoluments", the payoffs, tax issues, etc.
Barr's letter doesn't absolve Russia from allegations of meddling, much as some might think otherwise. 

 "General entanglement with Russia" is . . . ?  OK you tell us what it is

 I believe the intervening comments clarified things for you on this question, if you genuinely were unaware.

From Aaron Mate, one of the leading dissenting voices on Russiagate, explains what happened:

Mr. Trump said this today: "There are a lot of people out there that have done some very, very evil things, some bad things, I would say some treasonous things against our country."

Mr. Surovell can let us know whether he agrees that there were "treasonous things" done against our country in the investigation, and if so what.

nohero said:
Mr. Trump said this today: "There are a lot of people out there that have done some very, very evil things, some bad things, I would say some treasonous things against our country."
Mr. Surovell can let us know whether he agrees that there were "treasonous things" done against our country in the investigation, and if so what.

 No. Do you agree with any of the people who said Trump was "treasonous" for colluding with Russia (sic)?

paulsurovell said:
From Aaron Mate, one of the leading dissenting voices on Russiagate, explains what happened:

 He sums it up well cause he lived it on the front line. I especially like his comment about people who clung to the WMD hoax and doubled down and made excuses and kept suggesting we needed to look in new places.  They could not let go.

I just love how the circle jerkers all of a sudden find truth in pronouncements from the Trump administration. As if the Barr summary is not spin.

You guys are so cute.

drummerboy said:
I just love how the circle jerkers all of a sudden find truth in pronouncements from the Trump administration. As if the Barr summary is not spin.
You guys are so cute.

 You guys are so sad.

paulsurovell said:

nohero said:
Mr. Trump said this today: "There are a lot of people out there that have done some very, very evil things, some bad things, I would say some treasonous things against our country."
Mr. Surovell can let us know whether he agrees that there were "treasonous things" done against our country in the investigation, and if so what.

 No. Do you agree with any of the people who said Trump was "treasonous" for colluding with Russia (sic)?

I can only answer in a general way, since you didn't provide a quote.  Barr's letter quotes the Mueller report as saying, “[T]he investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.”  So there wouldn't be any treason charge for something that's not been established, as opposed to possible treason for other things that could be established.

nan said:
 You guys are so sad.

 Sad is believing the Trump administration, but you really don't see that, do you? William Barr is now your truth teller! Good for you!

drummerboy said:
I just love how the circle jerkers all of a sudden find truth in pronouncements from the Trump administration. As if the Barr summary is not spin.
You guys are so cute.

Idiocracy is apparently here.  This nonsense is just a continuation of the mass stupidity regarding this collusion nonsense the last couple of years.  The biggest circle jerk of my lifetime. 

Now we can concentrate on Trump’s ineptitude, lack of knowledge, lack of morals, racism, xenophobia, misogyny, and the deplorables who surround him, within and outside the government.  None of that has changed.  

drummerboy said:
 Sad is believing the Trump administration, but you really don't see that, do you? William Barr is now your truth teller! Good for you!

Taibbi: As the Mueller Probe Ends, New Russiagate Myths Begin

Donald Trump couldn't have asked for a juicier 2020 campaign issue

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/taibbi-russia-investigation-conclusions-813171/

After all the insistence that we put our trust in St. Mueller because he “knows all,” the new story suddenly is that Mueller all along didn’t know and didn’t try to know. The Atlantic’s take was, “Mueller, a career G-man, is fundamentally legally conservative,” which means “he has a narrow view of his own role.”

Therefore, despite the fact that Mueller didn’t determine he had evidence for a charge, we can “infer his conclusions by reviewing how he marshaled the evidence for and against guilt.”

This meant we should read between the lines of what Mueller ended up “saying,” so we can divine (I use that religious word on purpose) his true meaning. By not delivering the desired goods, Mueller is now being described as “The God that failed Democrats,” by Edward Luce of the Financial Times, who makes the shockingly belated observation that the Democrats putting all their hopes in the “magic bullet” of the Mueller investigation “postponed the harder, less glamorous work the party needs to be doing.”

Matthews, in a tone that suggested he was being the sober adult delivering tough love, completed his thought about how “they don’t have him on collusion” by saying, with a shrug of undisguised disappointment:“So I think the Democrats have got to win the election.” He added, “There’s no waiting around for uncle Robert to take care of everything.” 

I know no one cares how this sounds to non-Democrats, but this is a member of the media looking sad that Democrats would have to resort to actual democracy to win the White House back.

Given that “collusion” has turned out to be dry well, to the ordinary viewer it will look a hell of lot like the MSNBCs of the world humped a fake story for two consecutive years in the hopes of overturning election results ahead of time. Trump couldn’t have asked for a juicier campaign issue, and an easier way to argue that “elites” don’t respect the democratic choices of flyover voters. It’s hard to imagine what could look worse. 

For the commercial press to recapture any dignity after this collusion debacle, it has to at least start admitting to its role in artificially raising expectations in the last two years. It’s hard to imagine them doing that, however. This story has been so enormously profitable for cable stations, in particular, it will be hard for them to let go of this narrative. What are they going to do, go back to just reporting the news? One can almost feel how depressed network executives must be at the thought. They’ve trained audiences have come to expect bombshells. What will they sell now?