READ: White House letter to Barr about Mueller report https://t.co/Yg1ioCPyiY pic.twitter.com/pt3WemGN0P
— The Hill (@thehill) May 2, 2019
Tag: collusion
Mueller Didn’t Clear Trump
Breaking News: Robert Mueller wrote a letter to the attorney general objecting to his characterization that the Russia inquiry appeared to clear President Trump https://t.co/sApMAxyIhX
— The New York Times (@nytimes) April 30, 2019
The letter adds to the growing evidence of a rift between them and is another sign of the anger among the special counsel’s investigators about Barr’s characterization of their findingshttps://t.co/hl9MFjGPCp
— The New York Times (@nytimes) April 30, 2019
Among Trump’s caddies:
Here’s a link describing Barr’s employment & investment ties to Russia. As such, Barr should recuse himself as Attorney General. I really believes Robert Mueller should be interviewed ASAP. Impeachment would make doing this a heck of a lot easier!https://t.co/ofeMIOSU2i. (2/2)😒
— RenéeLaChatte (@renfibax) May 1, 2019
Haunted by Kremlins
Reporting establishes that Trump's campaign manager sold a known Kremlin spy proprietary internal campaign polling data and an offer of private briefings on Trump's foreign policy deliberations for $2.4 million. We'll see what Mueller found—but it certainly wasn't "no collusion."
— Seth Abramson (@SethAbramson) March 24, 2019
1/ For instance, he could say he was unable to or uninterested in charging Manafort with conspiracy after Manafort wouldn't cooperate with tge SCO but got more than 7 years in prison anyway. That's very different from saying that Manafort didn't actively collude with the Kremlin.
— Seth Abramson (@SethAbramson) March 24, 2019
2/ When I wrote my first book on this subject, I deliberately stuck with the term "collusion." To say collusion simply means "conspiracy" is not only wrong—it does enormous damage to our understanding of what actually happened here and why it's the biggest scandal in our history.
— Seth Abramson (@SethAbramson) March 24, 2019
3/ I've seen non-attorney journalists foolishly boast that they're smarter than most for having figured out that "collusion" is the wrong term to use here—that we should opt for "conspiracy." But when you use the narrowest and hardest-to-prove term for misconduct, you excuse it.
— Seth Abramson (@SethAbramson) March 24, 2019
4/ The result of so many people not understanding the difference between conspiracy and collusion and the *greater* utility of the *latter* term is we have all these Trumper morons on Twitter saying Mueller found no collusion when what they *mean* is he'll *charge* no conspiracy.
— Seth Abramson (@SethAbramson) March 24, 2019
5/ Collusion can occur without criminal conduct. Collusion can occur within criminal conduct not charged as conspiracy. Collusion can be assigned to a campaign, not just—as crimes are—one person. Journalists must say Mueller is likely to find collusion, but not charge conspiracy.
— Seth Abramson (@SethAbramson) March 24, 2019
6/ I'll admit that I'm angry—and have been for some time—at those journalists who've thought so little about the norms we're trying to protect here that they've accepted the Trumper line that everything is *okay* so long as Mueller didn't find 90%+ proof of a criminal conspiracy.
— Seth Abramson (@SethAbramson) March 24, 2019
7/ When Trump had a secret face-to-face conversation with Putin, then hours later crafted a false statement for America to read about a meeting with Kremlin agents in his home—to keep hiding what he's always hidden, the scope of his relationship with the Kremlin—that's collusion.
— Seth Abramson (@SethAbramson) March 24, 2019
8/ When Trump held a national security meeting in his hotel in March 2016 and a member of his tiny NatSec team said he was a Kremlin intermediary trying to set up—backchannel—a secret Trump-Russia summit on foreign policy with the Kremlin and Trump promoted him, that's collusion.
— Seth Abramson (@SethAbramson) March 24, 2019
9/ When Trump—knowing perfectly well that his campaign was engaged in a backchannel conversation with the Kremlin over its support for him—publicly asked for the Kremlin's help in hacking his opponents, and in under 24 hours the hackers acceded to his wishes, that was collusion.
— Seth Abramson (@SethAbramson) March 24, 2019
10/ When Trump directly ordered his NatSec team to make a change to the RNC platform to benefit the Kremlin at a time his campaign was reaching out to Kremlin agents to get them to give him stolen Clinton emails—thereby performing on his half of a quid pro quo—that was collusion.
— Seth Abramson (@SethAbramson) March 24, 2019
11/ When Trump "found out"—assuming he hadn't known all along—his NSA had been secretly negotiating American foreign policy with the Kremlin for months, including during the campaign, and not only didn't fire him but tried to deep-six feds' prosecution of him, that was collusion.
— Seth Abramson (@SethAbramson) March 24, 2019
12/ When Trump was secretly negotiating a multibillion dollar tower deal with Kremlin agents during the 2016 campaign while telling America that he had no business relationship whatsoever with any Russians, that was collusion of the most outrageously obvious and treacherous sort.
— Seth Abramson (@SethAbramson) March 24, 2019
13/ When Trump disclosed classified Israeli intel in the Oval Office at a meeting with top Kremlin agents that he'd forbidden any Americans from attending or even photographing—and bragged to them about ending investigation into secret US-Russian coordination—that was collusion.
— Seth Abramson (@SethAbramson) March 24, 2019
14/ When Trump secretly crafted a plan to drop all sanctions on the Kremlin even as his presidential campaign aides were having countless secret meetings with Russian nationals about sanctions policy—a plan that, when revealed, *terrified* the State Department—that was collusion.
— Seth Abramson (@SethAbramson) March 24, 2019
15/ Proof that I could go on and on in this vein ad nauseum is that I've written two books—about 1000 pages—on Trump's collusion. Never let journalists tell you that there shouldn't be a *word* for all this until it's "conspiracy" beyond a reasonable doubt. It's *collusion*. /end
— Seth Abramson (@SethAbramson) March 24, 2019
No Collusion Investigation
Mueller's report will almost certainly disappoint you, and it's not his fault. It's your fault for buying into Trump's false narrative that it is Mueller's' job to prove "collusion," a nearly impossible bar for any prosecutor to clear.
My piece in @TIME: https://t.co/VQ2WhhC996
— Renato Mariotti (@renato_mariotti) March 1, 2019
Robert Mueller Has Stitched Together a Russia Report in Plain View
Indictment by indictment, special counsel Robert Mueller has stitched together a Russia report in plain view. https://t.co/4giqodTony
— The Associated Press (@AP) February 23, 2019
THE MEMO: Mueller report won’t end Trump’s legal woes https://t.co/bPqObe9R1Z pic.twitter.com/R11qgGogyz
— The Hill (@thehill) February 23, 2019
Will Barr’s Task Be Again to Pardon Criminals in Order to Let the President Get Away?
As attorney general, William Barr once orchestrated a pardon strategy to spare the president from an independent prosecutor. Would he do it again? https://t.co/uFFJ4wgwzg
— Bloomberg Opinion (@bopinion) January 16, 2019
Is Trump an Russian Intelligence Asset?
The headline is stunning, and does not at all overstate the story https://t.co/Tl24jU94gw
— Maggie Haberman (@maggieNYT) January 12, 2019
And Republicans in Congress know all this — but they're covering for him anyway. Remember this whenever they claim to be more patriotic than liberals — or patriots at all https://t.co/jMWrW3Tps7
— Paul Krugman (@paulkrugman) January 13, 2019
Distracted by the Wall
A further reason for upholding the noisy wall debate is: distraction. During the crowd is kept busy discussing the wall or fence or whatever, the GOP can silently rebuild the state.https://t.co/5TH8PRujfH
— Goetz Kluge (@Bonnetmaker) January 13, 2019
“FBI can’t neutralize a security threat if the president is the threat”
So many important and interesting pieces out there this morning. This one by @AshaRangappa_ is indispensable. https://t.co/fn7j89lpY8
— Elie Honig (@eliehonig) January 13, 2019
But Mueller — and Congress — could pick up where counterintelligence hits its limits.
By Asha Rangappa [2019-01-13]
The FBI, according to the New York Times, opened a counterintelligence investigation into whether President Trump was secretly working on behalf of Russia after he fired former FBI director James B. Comey in 2017. As a former FBI agent who conducted investigations against foreign intelligence services, I know that the bureau would have had to possess strong evidence that Trump posed a national security threat to meet the threshold for opening such an investigation. But the more important question now is not how or why the case was opened, but whether it was ever closed. […]
No Collusion
The Bellman’s rule: “What I tell you three times is true!”
Kelly Ramsdell Fineman told us …
… that President Theodore Roosevelt and Edith Wharton were huge fans of the Snark. On one visit to the White House, Wharton learned of the following exchange that occurred between the President and the Secretary of the Navy (undoubtedly unaware of Carroll’s poem, or at least unaware that Roosevelt was quoting):
During discussion, Roosevelt said to the secretary of the Navy,
“Mr. Secretary, what I tell you three times is true!”
The Secretary replied stiffly,
“Mr. President, it would never for a moment have occurred to me to impugn your veracity.”
So far for three times. But 16 times is fine too:
Trump sat for 30 minutes at his golf club with the Times. He said “no collusion” 16 times https://t.co/BOwHyvlCUb
— Amy Fiscus (@amyfiscus) December 29, 2017
001 “Just the place for a Snark!” the Bellman cried,
002 As he landed his crew with care;
003 Supporting each man on the top of the tide
004 By a finger entwined in his hair.005 “Just the place for a Snark! I have said it twice:
006 That alone should encourage the crew.
007 Just the place for a Snark! I have said it thrice:
008 What I tell you three times is true.”
329 “’Tis the voice of the Jubjub!” he suddenly cried.
330 (This man, that they used to call “Dunce.”)
331 “As the Bellman would tell you,” he added with pride,
332 “I have uttered that sentiment once.333 “’Tis the note of the Jubjub! Keep count, I entreat;
334 You will find I have told it you twice.
335 ’Tis the song of the Jubjub! The proof is complete,
336 If only I’ve stated it thrice.”
The Bellman’s Rule is stated in Lewis Carroll’s The Hunting of the Snark, line #7 and line #335. I said it in Lua – wrote it in Python, I made that indeed, but I wholly forgot (when finally done), that Haskell is what you need! So, here is an example for how to implement that rule:
#! /usr/bin/haskell
import Data.List
statementList :: [String]
statementList =
["No collusion."
,"No collusion."
,"No collusion."
,"I am a stable genius!"
,"No collusion."
,"No collusion."
,"No collusion."
,"No collusion."
,"No collusion."
,"No collusion."
,"No collusion."
,"I am a stable genius!"
,"No collusion."
,"No collusion."
,"No collusion."
,"I am a stable genius!"
,"No collusion."
,"1+1=2."
,"No collusion."
,"No collusion."
,"Collusion is not a crime."
,"Collusion is not a crime."
,"Collusion is not a crime."
]
atLeastThrice :: [String] -> [String]
atLeastThrice sL =
[head grp | grp <-
group $ sort sL, length grp >= 3]
Result (if loaded and executed in GHCi):
*Main> atLeastThrice statementList
["Collusion is not a crime.","I am a stable genius!","No collusion."]
