a rout for trump and a flop for
the democrats.

This looks like winning to you?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sWiFpxxWFlQ&t=5s

I love it, we now have video of Mueller destroying the no collusion no obstruction mantra and Jim thinks it's a rout. I'll be they're already working on the campaign commercials.

Did you really expect them to portray it as anything else😂
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

you guys are right, i don’t know how i missed it. let the impeachment begin. of course ABC news political correspondent Terry Moran says any hope of impeachment is over, but he’s just a trumplican.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

https://m.youtube.com/watch?fbclid=IwAR3aQwnIZgdOwfzFGElpY7kefT9BPutgI_q Z49To16-Pf0tAe6ufenklJ94&v=RfDBOZwnxXE
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

here’s Mueller really schooling Jim Jordan. He’s really got him on the ropes.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?fbclid=IwAR0aAtGGs9GUMpgBOx69-f1EvLvMs25rwUMmbinGNQrbbWhBwP7AuRQ5NZU&v=mKSKKLAStK0
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

and Mueller flat-out denied, that the rule
about not indicting a sitting president, played a role in his deciding not to
indict.

The Narrative checked
itself into rehab.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

ABC correspondent says “impeachment is over.”

https://www.foxnews.com/media/abc-news-correspondent-says-impeachments-over-after-mueller-testimony
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

anti trump harvard law professor calls hearing a disaster for democrats.

https://www.foxnews.com/media/anti-trump-harvard-law-prof-laurence-tribe-calls-mueller-hearing-disaster-that-helped-the-president
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

#winforAmerica
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

#winforAmerica
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

not for mueller. he was feeble
and confused about what was in his own report.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Look, all you needed was uniforms to figure which party had the microphone and was on the clock.... Mueller was a dud, or ill.
Dems have to be disappointed.... despite calls from most of the announced 2020 candidates to proceed with impeachment proceedings.
Expecting a slam dunk, they got a face plant..
Trump treated the media to a victory lap... Gave them much more time and sound bites than they expected. See what they do with it. I didn't hear much there for them... And, said the guy who voted against HRC, he (Trump)still makes me sick.


So sick of the divisiveness....

I said earlier that anything but impeachment hearings from this, was a win for trump. Got accused of being the usual trumplican because I didn’t go to the light. :rolleyes:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

These suckers will bite on anything
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

These suckers will bite on anything
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Did trump say that ? Sounds about right.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

mueller said very explicitly, that the rule against indicting a sitting president played no role in his decision not to
indict. pretty sure that means he decided not to indict because there wasn’t enough evidence. if that’s the case, this is over.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

mueller said very explicitly, that the rule against indicting a sitting president played no role in his decision not to
indict. pretty sure that means he decided not to indict because there wasn’t enough evidence. if that’s the case, this is over.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
He said just the opposite. Are you into Dangles stash?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

He said just the opposite. WTF are you smoking?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Jim read it on his alt right news website. Because it’s real news and not fake news.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

# pissedoffflakes
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Collins: At any time in the investigation was your investigation curtailed or stopped or hindered?

Mueller: No.

earlier.....

Mueller continued:

"Second, the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired with the Russian government in its election interference activities. 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. It was not.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

He said just the opposite. Are you into Dangles stash?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
in the morning. apparently you turned it off a tad early. in the afternoon, he clarified it, and said he was not influenced by pressure to not indict
a sitting potus.

i’m smoking nothing. you’re
smoking obama’s penis as usual.

here you go, Columbo. You’re having a rough go of it, huh?

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/mueller-issues-clarification-takes-back-bombshell-statement-about-indicting-trump
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Jim read it on his alt right news website. Because it’s real news and not fake news.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

read Muellers redaction.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Pointless to debate the GOP, for as many great moments and video snippets they can post, we could post as many and more. They will claim it a win, while I see it as proof that while they may not have found evidence of a cordinated effort with the Russians, they welcomed the help to elect their candidate. That doesn’t upset the GOP for some reason, or the multiple instances of obstruction, but spin it just like all the angry GOP I watched question mueller; I’m not buying it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Pointless to debate the GOP, for as many great moments and video snippets they can post, we could post as many and more. They will claim it a win, while I see it as proof that while they may not have found evidence of a cordinated effort with the Russians, they welcomed the help to elect their candidate. That doesn’t upset the GOP for some reason, or the multiple instances of obstruction, but spin it just like all the angry GOP I watched question mueller; I’m not buying it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

post whatever you want. Mueller said outside influences didn’t pressured him not to indict. Please tell me how you could possibly spin that, in a way that isn’t a slam dunk for the gop.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

it appears that the democrats have stepped on yet another rake :wall:

Looks like CNN ddn't even buy it yesterday.

QUIGLEY: Would it be fair to describe [Wikileaks] as ... a hostile intelligence service?

MUELLER: Yes.

QUIGLEY: If we could put up slide six. “This just came out. WikiLeaks. I love WikiLeaks.'' Donald Trump, Oct. 10, 2016. “This Wikileaks stuff is unbelievable. It tells you the inner heart. You've got to read it.” Donald Trump, Oct. 12, 2016. “This Wikileaks is like a treasure trove.” Donald Trump, October 21, 2016. “Boy, I love reading those WikiLeaks.” Donald Trump, Nov. 4, 2016. Would any of those quotes disturb you, Mr. Director?

...

MUELLER: Well, it's probably—problematic is an understatement in terms of what it displays in terms of giving some, I don't know, hope or some boost to what is and should be illegal activity.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

SCHIFF: From your testimony today I'd gather that you believe that knowingly accepting foreign assistance during a presidential campaign is an unethical thing to do.

...

MUELLER: And a crime, given certain circumstances.

SCHIFF: To the degree that it undermines our democracy and our institutions, we can also agree that it's also unpatriotic.

MUELLER: True

SCHIFF: And wrong.

MUELLER: True.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

One notable feature of the day was that the Republicans essentially accepted the assertions of the Mueller report as factual. By and large, they did not seek to contest the facts Mueller reported, but rather attacked alleged bias and the legal significance of the facts in the document. One of the functions of the report was to establish a common set of facts, and today’s hearing—in its own peculiar way—suggests that it has done that, at least to a point. The Republican members’ questions did not seem to doubt that McGahn was telling the truth and that Trump was lying. They accepted that Trump had asked Corey Lewandowski to get Sessions to unrecuse. While they fought on other matters, they didn’t contest the factual ground that Mueller has staked out.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

it appears that the democrats have stepped on yet another rake :wall:

big time. and more rakes to come.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

On the same day Mueller warned Russia is interfering in the 2020 election “as we sit here” & that accepting foreign assistance has become the “new normal”, Senate GOP blocked two election security bills, including one requiring campaigns inform FBI of offers of foreign help.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Look, all you needed was uniforms to figure which party had the microphone and was on the clock.... Mueller was a dud, or ill.
Dems have to be disappointed.... despite calls from most of the announced 2020 candidates to proceed with impeachment proceedings.
Expecting a slam dunk, they got a face plant..
Trump treated the media to a victory lap... Gave them much more time and sound bites than they expected. See what they do with it. I didn't hear much there for them... And, said the guy who voted against HRC, he (Trump)still makes me sick.


So sick of the divisiveness....


In typical congress fashion, it was dividing on Party lines. Listened to part, watched some.

Mueller looked tired and lost his fastball. This is not to say he was a stooge or a liar or anything like that. Seems to underscore why he earlier asked not to be brought to the Hill to testify before Congress.

He did not bring anything new or sensational. This was the political equivalent of the Pats / Rams Superbowl. Little gain by both sides, low score


On the same day Mueller warned Russia is interfering in the 2020 election “as we sit here” & that accepting foreign assistance has become the “new normal”, Senate GOP blocked two election security bills, including one requiring campaigns inform FBI of offers of foreign help.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

We need to do better, including FBI / NSA at blocking foreign digital influence. People also need to understand this is something Russia has done since long before Al Gore invented the Internet.

In typical congress fashion, it was dividing on Party lines. Listened to part, watched some.

Mueller looked tired and lost his fastball. This is not to say he was a stooge or a liar or anything like that. Seems to underscore why he earlier asked not to be brought to the Hill to testify before Congress.

He did not bring anything new or sensational. This was the political equivalent of the Pats / Rams Superbowl. Little gain by both sides, low score




We need to do better, including FBI / NSA at blocking foreign digital influence. People also need to understand this is something Russia has done since long before Al Gore invented the Internet.

i agree with all that. But is there any rational reason to believe, that the outcome of the election would have been any different, had Russia minded its own business? They didn’t hack into vote counting machines, they didn’t hypnotize us all with the Jedi mind trick.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

i agree with all that. But is there any rational reason to believe, that the outcome of the election would have been any different, had Russia minded its own business? They didn’t hack into vote counting machines, they didn’t hypnotize us all with the Jedi mind trick.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device


I don't know if they created enough influence to change the out come of the election merely with their efforts of 2015 to 2016. If one goes far down the Russian Influence rabbit hole they surely could not offset all the pro-progressive, CPUSA influence they've generated over seven decades.

Clearly the Force Choke is still applied to some people

He did not bring anything new or sensational. This was the political equivalent of the Pats / Rams Superbowl. Little gain by both sides, low score
Largely because he was ordered by the DOJ to not bring anything new or sensational.

That being said, what's in the report is already extremely sensational.

Russia meddled in the election to help Trump
The Trump campaign encouraged it and expected to benefit from it
Pretty much everyone involved including the President lied about it
When investigated Trump repeatedly tried to obstruct it
And now Russia (and others) are going to do it again and Republicans don't seem to care

Dems should have started impeachment hearings three months ago.

Largely because he was ordered by the DOJ to not bring anything new or sensational.

That being said, what's in the report is already extremely sensational.

Russia meddled in the election to help Trump
The Trump campaign encouraged it and expected to benefit from it
Pretty much everyone involved including the President lied about it
When investigated Trump repeatedly tried to obstruct it
And now Russia (and others) are going to do it again and Republicans don't seem to care

Dems should have started impeachment hearings three months ago.




Neither the report, nor Mueller's testimony in front of Congress had anything sensational. No smoking gun. No Indictment.


Trump is a sheitty President. I get that and I agree. Someone give me a middle of the road, fair, honest, and high integrity politician than won't bankrupt our country, or take away my rights to give to others so I have an alternative. Right now I am at write in but the crazier the left gets the less unappealing being never Trump gets.

Neither the report, nor Mueller's testimony in front of Congress had anything sensational. No smoking gun. No Indictment.
Ok, so ordering your council to create a fake paper trail while you're under investigation is like, um, no big deal? The report is full of stuff like that.

Collins: At any time in the investigation was your investigation curtailed or stopped or hindered?

Mueller: No.

Collins: At any time in the investigation was your investigation curtailed or stopped or hindered?

Mueller: No.
Clearly he's speaking internal DOJ process as the report states countless instances where witnesses lied, evidence was unavailable because of encryption, deception or refusal to cooperate and that's not even counting the cases of obstruction.

i agree with all that. But is there any rational reason to believe, that the outcome of the election would have been any different, had Russia minded its own business? They didn’t hack into vote counting machines, they didn’t hypnotize us all with the Jedi mind trick.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Given the scale of interference outlined in the report it's hard to believe it didn't have an impact. Given the election was decided on pretty thin margins it's quite possible it did push Trump over the edge.

What should be more disturbing though is that even though it did happen, Trump and a lot of the GOP is still denying or downplaying the threat to our electoral system or opposing efforts to improve it.

Someone give me a middle of the road, fair, honest, and high integrity politician than won't bankrupt our country, or take away my rights to give to others so I have an alternative. .

the left and the
media make it almost impossible for such a person to get a fair shake. McCain was a senile old racist, Romney a heartless plutocrat. if you want someone to the right of Liz Warren, that person needs to be able to fight back, and effectively. i’m not saying it needs to be Trump, but it can’t be a gentlemanly milquetoast wimp
either. not until more of the media isn’t partial.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Given the scale of interference outlined in the report it's hard to believe it didn't have an impact. Given the election was decided on pretty thin margins it's quite possible it did push Trump over the edge.

What should be more disturbing though is that even though it did happen, Trump and a lot of the GOP is still denying or downplaying the threat to our electoral system or opposing efforts to improve it.

yawn.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Clearly he's speaking internal DOJ process as the report states countless instances where witnesses lied, evidence was unavailable because of encryption, deception or refusal to cooperate and that's not even counting the cases of obstruction.

I believe he also said evidence was destroyed. And if Clinton ever refused to answer questions or not meet, the Repubs. would have been screaming.

"Throughout 2016, the report found, Paul Manafort, President Trump’s campaign chairman, gave private polling information to Russian agents and shared campaign strategy with them; in June 2016, Donald Trump Jr., the president’s son, arranged a meeting with Russians at Trump Tower in the expectation of getting “dirt” on the Hillary Clinton campaign; on July 27 of that year, candidate Trump publicly called on the Russians to hack Mrs. Clinton’s emails, five hours before they attempted to do just that; the campaign then devised its strategy and created its messages around WikiLeaks’s releases of stolen files from the Democratic National Committee"

yawn.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

When you start caring more for the Repub. party than America?

Dems should have started impeachment hearings three months ago.



that's exactly what I've been saying

the left and the
media make it almost impossible for such a person to get a fair shake. McCain was a senile old racist, Romney a heartless plutocrat. if you want someone to the right of Liz Warren, that person needs to be able to fight back, and effectively. i’m not saying it needs to be Trump, but it can’t be a gentlemanly milquetoast wimp
either. not until more of the media isn’t partial.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device


The R Primary does the same thing so that is unfortunate for all too. The one recent time that the moderate rose to the general, Romney, he was flayed as a sexist binder ridden polygamist that was gonna pout 47% of all y'all in chains.


I believe he also said evidence was destroyed. And if Clinton ever refused to answer questions or not meet, the Repubs. would have been screaming.

"Throughout 2016, the report found, Paul Manafort, President Trump’s campaign chairman, gave private polling information to Russian agents and shared campaign strategy with them; in June 2016, Donald Trump Jr., the president’s son, arranged a meeting with Russians at Trump Tower in the expectation of getting “dirt” on the Hillary Clinton campaign; on July 27 of that year, candidate Trump publicly called on the Russians to hack Mrs. Clinton’s emails, five hours before they attempted to do just that; the campaign then devised its strategy and created its messages around WikiLeaks’s releases of stolen files from the Democratic National Committee"

I truly don't think they hacked Clinton's emails after Trump called for it, they had Clinton's emails for a long time already, as did the Chinese and god knows what other countries.

When you start caring more for the Repub. party than America?

When both the Reps and Dems care more about reelection than American, you mean?

When you start caring more for the Repub. party than America?

never. i’ve said
if he committed a crime, i wNt h vine more than anyone. i was told a million times the mueller report would be the final say, but as always, the left can’t handle it when it doesn’t go their way.

do you or spence or pete or GS or wdmso care that the doj used a dossier paid for by hilary, to spy on an american citizen?

i’m concerned about trump. and i’m concerned that hilary used the doj as her personal private eye firm. i’m concerned about both of those things. are you? or do you only care about one?

you people
learned absolutely nothing in 2016. Zip.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

never. i’ve said
if he committed a crime, i wNt h vine more than anyone. i was told a million times the mueller report would be the final say, but as always, the left can’t handle it when it doesn’t go their way.You don't have a problem with Trump and his team's lying or trying to work with the Russians?

do you or spence or pete or GS or wdmso care that the doj used a dossier paid for by hilary, to spy on an american citizen? Who cares who paid for it? Isn't that missing the point? Who paid for it bf the Hillary's team?

i’m concerned about trump. and i’m concerned that hilary used the doj as her personal private eye firm. i’m concerned about both of those things. are you? or do you only care about one?You have no proof of that.

you people
learned absolutely nothing in 2016. Zip.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

And you seem to care more about 3.7% and 27,000 than that the Russians interfered in elections or the constant lying from this admin - nothing has been done to prevent the Russians from doing it again.

never. i’ve said
if he committed a crime, i wNt h vine more than anyone. i was told a million times the mueller report would be the final say, but as always, the left can’t handle it when it doesn’t go their way.

do you or spence or pete or GS or wdmso care that the doj used a dossier paid for by hilary, to spy on an american citizen?

i’m concerned about trump. and i’m concerned that hilary used the doj as her personal private eye firm. i’m concerned about both of those things. are you? or do you only care about one?

you people
learned absolutely nothing in 2016. Zip.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

And just when would you suggest looking at political operatives involvement with Russia?

Popadopoulous told an Australian diplomat about info on Russians having emails and the Aussie had more sense than anyone in the Trump campaign, including Trump to date.

“All we did was report what Papadopoulos said, and that was that he thought the Russians may release information that could be damaging to Hillary Clinton’s campaign at some stage before the election,” Downer told Sky News. “Now, he didn’t have to tell me that. I didn’t go to the meeting thinking he was even going to mention Russia in a context like the election campaign, I had no idea he would say that.”

Papadopoulos had several meetings with foreign individuals overseas, including Downer and Maltese professor Joseph Mifsud, during the 2016 presidential election. Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report stated that Mifsud told Papadopoulos that the Russians had “dirt” in the form of emails that could damage Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign. Papadopoulos then told Downer about his conversations with Mifsud.

Papadopoulos has previously suggested that the Downer meeting was part of a plot to lay the groundwork for the Russia probe.

Downer said that Papadopoulos “chose” to share that information with him.

“I have no idea why he was blabbering this, but if you say that sort of thing to somebody who is part of the Five Eyes intelligence community, I mean, I would regard myself as a warrior for the western alliance, but if it is drawn to my attention that the Russians might be hacking into the campaigns of major candidates in western elections and then using that information to try to influence the outcome of those elections, that would really worry me,” he explained.

“Russia is not a friendly pal when it comes to western interests, and if they’re hacking into our elections, then that’s something we should try to stop,” Downer said. “I don’t know why he told me this, but he did and we reported it and the rest is history, but there is no defense for him saying it is some sort of weird conspiracy, I mean, it’s what he told me.”

Would you suggest we not investigate the unusual ties of several other Trump campaign aides to Russia. The early investigation focused on Papadopoulos, as well as Trump senior adviser Michael Flynn, campaign manager Paul Manafort, and foreign policy adviser Carter Page. Flynn had been paid $45,000 by Russia's state-sponsored television network RT for a 2015 speech in Moscow, where he was given a place of honor at the same dinner table as President Vladimir Putin. Manafort had been paid millions lobbying for pro-Russian interests in Ukraine. Page, an oil industry consultant who had lived in Russia for three years during the early 2000s, was already well known to the FBI. Russian spies had attempted to recruit him as an asset in 2013, after which a Russian operative was overheard in a wiretapped conversation telling his superiors that Page was "an idiot." As a Trump campaign aide, Page traveled to Moscow for three days in July 2016. While there, he gave a speech harshly criticizing the Obama administration's foreign policy toward Russia and met with officials of Rosneft, a state-run oil company. The FBI obtained a secret court order to wiretap Page in October, after he had left the campaign. That warrant from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court has become one of the most controversial parts of the investigation.

After Trump fired FBI Director James Comey, citing "this Russia thing," special counsel Robert Mueller conducted a two-year investigation that concluded that Russia had interfered in the 2016 presidential election "in a sweeping and systematic fashion." Mueller found that several people close to Trump — including Manafort and longtime confidant Roger Stone — had had dozens of contacts with Russians and were "receptive" to offers of help. Mueller also found 10 instances in which Trump personally may have obstructed justice in trying to limit or shut down the investigation. Republican Sen. Marco Rubio, a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said the committee's work had convinced him that the FBI had no choice but to begin a probe. "There was a growing body of evidence that a foreign government was attempting to interfere in both the process and the debate surrounding our elections," Rubio said. "The [FBI's] job is to investigate counter-intelligence. That's what they did."

Seems simple to me, both the report and Muellers testimony show Russian interfered in a major way, the Trump campaign while not proven guilty of conspiring with the Russians, they gladly accepted and in fact encouraged help from a long time enemy (very American of them). The report and testimony also proof Trump on multiple occasions made attempts to hinder, stop and then tamper with witnesses and the other reason he wasn’t charged was due to the guidelines under which Mueller was operating. That’s my interpretation of it and I don’t need a dozen posts to attempt to show where I’m wrong, because that’s as futile as my going beyond the above opinion to prove your wrong. Move on, Congress will either dig up more, get financial records, start proceedings to impeach or we move to the election and it’s decided there, I personally can’t wait for one or the other.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Seems simple to me, both the report and Muellers testimony show Russian interfered in a major way, .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

And the Repubs. just blocked election security bills.

Seems simple to me, both the report and Muellers testimony show Russian interfered in a major way,
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

you know that was all during the Obama presidency ...right???

Here is the reason they put forth a bill to make this not only bad form but illegal.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pozyiSHRm1U


And you can read the bill here
https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-bill/1247/text?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22election%22%5D%7D&r=1&s=3

you know that was all during the Obama presidency ...right???
According to Mueller they're still doing it today.

According to Mueller they're still doing it today.

muller didn't appear to know what day today was

The intention just was not there. Next witch hunt is looming
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The intention just was not there. Next witch hunt is looming
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
The intent to conspire with the Russians maybe not, the intent to obstruct an investigation DEFINATELY!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

WASHINGTON — The Senate Intelligence Committee concluded Thursday that election systems in all 50 states were targeted by Russia in 2016, largely undetected by the states and federal officials at the time, but at the demand of American intelligence agencies the committee was forced to redact its findings so heavily that key lessons for the 2020 election are blacked out.

Image
One section on recommended action was almost completely redacted.
One section on recommended action was almost completely redacted.
The report — the first volume of several to be released from the committee’s investigation into Russia’s 2016 election interference — came just 24 hours after the former special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, warned that Russia was moving again to interfere “as we sit here.”


It also landed hours after Senator Mitch McConnell, the majority leader, personally stepped forward to block consideration of a package of election security bills.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Mitch is useless and time for him to go.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The intent to conspire with the Russians maybe not, the intent to obstruct an investigation DEFINATELY!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Definitely. NOT
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Definitely. NOT
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So you must be smarter or more informed than the hundreds of formal federal prosecutors who basically agreed with Mueller, stating that if anyone BUT a sitting president would have been charged, can you please scan your legal degree and post it for proof you have those credentials🤣🤣🤣
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So you must be smarter or more informed than the hundreds of formal federal prosecutors who basically agreed with Mueller, stating that if anyone BUT a sitting president would have been charged, can you please scan your legal degree and post it for proof you have those credentials🤣🤣🤣
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I was actually trying to show you how to spell definitely. (Without caps)
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Spelling is so much more important than meaning, my goodness I’m thankful for the correction, what would this board be without the spelling police🤪
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

We help each other out.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So you must be smarter or more informed than the hundreds of formal federal prosecutors who basically agreed with Mueller, stating that if anyone BUT a sitting president would have been charged, can you please scan your legal degree and post it for proof you have those credentials🤣🤣🤣
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

then why didn’t Mueller ( who everyone in the left was tripping over themselves to adore for two years) just indict? he said the protocol against indicting a sitting potus was not the reason he didn’t indict, he said the investigation didn’t establish that trump committed a crime. does that mean anything to you? was mueller bought off by trump?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

He couldn't indict Trump

Here's Mueller's statement:
“I want to add one correction to my testimony this morning," Mueller said. "I want to go back to one thing that was said this morning by Mr. Lieu, who said and I quote, ‘You didn’t charge the President because of the OLC opinion. That is not the correct way to say it. As we say in the report and as I said at the opening, we did not reach a determination as to whether the President committed a crime.”

That is a portion of what he said in his opening statement:
"Based on Justice Department policy and principles of fairness, we decided we would not make a determination as to whether the President committed a crime. That was our decision then and it remains our decision today."

Mueller clarified that he did not intend to support Lieu’s implication that Mueller would have indicted Trump if not for the OLC opinion.

That would have meant that Mueller determined that Trump committed a crime, but could not do anything about it.

Mueller also said the President could be indicted for obstruction after he was out of office, he did not say he would or should be.

He couldn't indict Trump

Here's Mueller's statement:
“I want to add one correction to my testimony this morning," Mueller said. "I want to go back to one thing that was said this morning by Mr. Lieu, who said and I quote, ‘You didn’t charge the President because of the OLC opinion. That is not the correct way to say it. As we say in the report and as I said at the opening, we did not reach a determination as to whether the President committed a crime.”

That is a portion of what he said in his opening statement:
"Based on Justice Department policy and principles of fairness, we decided we would not make a determination as to whether the President committed a crime. That was our decision then and it remains our decision today."

Mueller clarified that he did not intend to support Lieu’s implication that Mueller would have indicted Trump if not for the OLC opinion.

That would have meant that Mueller determined that Trump committed a crime, but could not do anything about it.

Mueller also said the President could be indicted for obstruction after he was out of office, he did not say he would or should be.

this is some crazy contortioneering :hihi:

That is a portion of what he said in his opening statement:
"Based on Justice Department policy and principles of fairness, we decided we would not make a determination as to whether the President committed a crime. That was our decision then and it remains our decision today."



Justice Department policy does not prevent making a determination re the President's conduct. Making a determination and indicting are not the same thing. If there was sufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that there was criminal intent in Trump's actions (criminal intent would be necessary in a case where there is no underlying crime), then Mueller could have made that determination. It would be a dereliction of his duty not to make the determination if he believed it and the evidence showed it, but it would be foolish, or obviously biased, to determine he committed a crime if criminal intent could not be established. There is no doubt that Mueller would know that. That all may well be why he refused to make the determination as to whether the President committed a crime, mainly being that criminal intent would be too difficult to establish.

And the notion that he didn't make the determination on the basis of fairness is deceptive on its face. If fairness were the issue, then simply stating that there was not sufficient evidence to make that determination. Period. Case closed. The way Mueller did it was not, in any way, "fair." As Scott said, it was "crazy contortioneering."

Justice Department policy does not prevent making a determination re the President's conduct. Making a determination and indicting are not the same thing. If there was sufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that there was criminal intent in Trump's actions (criminal intent would be necessary in a case where there is no underlying crime), then Mueller could have made that determination. It would be a dereliction of his duty not to make the determination if he believed it and the evidence showed it, but it would be foolish, or obviously biased, to determine he committed a crime if criminal intent could not be established. There is no doubt that Mueller would know that. That all may well be why he refused to make the determination as to whether the President committed a crime, mainly being that criminal intent would be too difficult to establish.

And the notion that he didn't make the determination on the basis of fairness is deceptive on its face. If fairness were the issue, then simply stating that there was not sufficient evidence to make that determination. Period. Case closed. The way Mueller did it was not, in any way, "fair." As Scott said, it was "crazy contortioneering."

You should be glad that the Independent Counsel Act expired or the investigation might have been as wide ranging and gone on as long as Starr's of the Clintons. Probably would have involved Stormy, Trump's finances and who knows what else.

But as far as your claim that the report failed to make a determination that Trump and his team acted improperly at best you are incorrect.

Here is a list for you:
https://www.lawfareblog.com/mueller-trump-everything-special-counsels-report-says-president-did-said-or-knew

I think your argument is with the rules the Special Counsel operates under.

I assume that Rosenstein as the representative of the AG knew thru the required reporting about Mueller's teams reading of the regulations far prior to the issuance of the report.

You could ask your Representative to put forth that question, or perhaps it is one of the ones Mueller took. After the hearings, committee chairpersons give their colleagues a deadline for submitting additional questions based on the witness’s testimony and Mueller might be asked to provide a more substantive response.

The report Mueller prepared per the regulations was a confidential report and he presented it to the AG per the regulations. It was the AG's choice to release it in whole or part, if it was in the public interest. I believe Congress could also release it.

This is the interesting testimony to Congress on Wednesday, September 15, 1999 after the new regulations were issued by the Attorney General on June 30 to replace procedures which expired with the sunset that day of the Independent Counsel Act.

You can read the testimony here

https://www.brookings.edu/testimonies/attorney-generals-special-counsel-regulations/

I expect after this the Special Counsel regulations may yet again be revised or a new law enacted.

Perfect is all I can say and well worth the termination for the audio visual guy who pulled this off and the translation in spanish for the verbiage is 42 is a puppet.

^^^^ did it make you feel better?...seems a bit childish

This looks like winning to you?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sWiFpxxWFlQ&t=5s

The dud over his left shoulder really ran things. Go back and watch his body language. He couldn't bed a poker player, that's for sure. I saw veins bulging on his forehead at one point

^^^^ did it make you feel better?...seems a bit childish
You mean like the juvenile insults that permeate this board, sure.

But as far as your claim that the report failed to make a determination that Trump and his team acted improperly at best you are incorrect.

I didn't make that claim. Perhaps your responding to somebody else? Or are you lying?

Here is a list for you:


After I got up to part IV, and saw there was a whole bunch more, I gave up. Didn't find it interesting or criminal up to that point. Just circumstances that could mean anything. I found particularly hilarious Trump's sarcastic public statements supposedly being evidence of conspiracy. Really? Hey, world! Listen here, I'm going to expose my conspiratorial Requests to Putin, et. al, right before your ears and eyes, so you can see what I'm up to!! Really? He's that stupid? He wouldn't make a more confidential conspiratorial request to Putin to help him out? Just blurt it out to the world for everyone to see?

You told me you don't watch my videos. I'm not going to read or look at anymore of your links, and videos, and long cut and pastes. They don't usually prove anything anyway.