bailtail

This. Add to that the fact that Trump’s mindset is a critical aspect to assessing whether he committed obstruction, yet Mueller not only didn’t subpoena him or ask questions in person, he accepted written answers prepared by Trump’s legal team and then did not follow-up with subsequent questioning...it all has me scratching my head. How can you make a criminal assessment without fully exploring a critical element of the legal test for said crime? At the very least, the fact that Mueller “didn’t form an opinion” on obstruction indicates that there was a plausible case. My guess as to an explanation on this is Mueller didn’t make a determination because Trump wouldn’t answer questions and he gave it to DOJ to pursue a potential subpoena and DOJ, being headed by partisan actors, decided not to pursue.

The obstruction is one thing that has clearly not been satisfactorily explained, but there are absolutely outstanding questions regarding collusion, as well. Barr’s letter has a footnote with a very narrow definition of collusion, one that involves an explicit agreement between the campaign and the Russian government. So long as there was no provable agreement, or such an agreement was made with those not directly part of the Russian government, Trump’s campaign could do all the shit we know about without meeting the definition set-forth by Barr’s letter. That leaves open the real possibility that there was a general understanding by the two sides, which there appears to have been, and that could be documented in Mueller’s while Barr’s letter is able to spin it as there was no evidence of collusive acts, which we know to be bullshit just from what is already public knowledge.

This is frustrating. What is publicly known, much of which has been obtained by Mueller court filings, indicates that there was a chargeable case on obstruction and at least evidence to suggest possible collusion, yet the way it’s being presented by Barr and run by the media makes it sound like there was nothing to substantiate collusion, and that obstruction was a weak case.

But if the polling data were critical for Russia to effectively target people in their operation and Trump’s team likely knew this when they turned over the data (why else would they?), wouldn’t that imply an agreement and drastically improve the campaign they could have otherwise executed? I realize that still might be a stretch as far as meeting the legal burden, but it’s a MUCH different story that what is being presented.

With regards to obstruction, the thing I can’t get past is there was effectively no legitimate attempt to directly assess mens rea as Trump was allowed to submit written responses prepared by his legal team. There was no direct interview, there was no subpoena, there were no follow-up questions. How can one effectively investigate obstruction without making a concerted effort to assess state of mind, a key element of the legal test on such an offense?

If I'm not mistaken, I believe I saw a few news stories leading up to the referendum that were basically saying most of those in Crimea who are not pro-Russia weren't even bothering to vote because the didn't see a point in voting on an illegal referendum. Also, I've seen reports stating many are fleeing to Ukraine proper in fear of Crimea transferring to Russia. Those would both explain why the vote would falsely appear so one-sided. Well...those and the likelihood it was probably rigged. I saw a story yesterday on how the votes collected in Simferopol were 120% of the city's actual population.

I don't know all the brands or types I've had, but I've probably had 10 or so different kinds in the time I've spent in China. This include at least a few that were quite expensive. I can honestly say there hasn't been a single one that I've found moderately enjoyable. I'm actually heading over on Monday. Do you have any recommendations as to what would be considered "good?"

The one that’s correct, duh!