Mueller Delivers Report on Russia Investigation to Attorney General

[boutons_deux]

A major development in Roger Stone’s case may explain why Mueller is finally resigning

a former Mueller prosecutor, Aaron Zelinsky, revealed in court Wednesday that a witness tied to Roger Stone has finally agreed to testify before the grand jury.
Stone is currently awaiting trial for the charges Mueller brought against him, which include lying to Congress, obstructing justice and intimidating a witness in the course of the Russia investigation.

But there have been hints that there may be

other charges looming over Stone, the most prominent hint being Mueller’s effort to get his associate, Andrew Miller, to testify before the grand jury.

Miller had long refused to testify, and he was held in contempt by Judge Beryl Howell for his refusal, but he has been appealing the decision.

Now, it was revealed in court, Miller has agreed to testify on Friday.

This suggests, though it is far from certain, that new charges might be coming against Stone.

Zelinsky spoke privately with the judge on Wednesday to explain why Miller’s testimony was still needed.

https://www.rawstory.com/2019/05/a-major-development-in-roger-stones-case-may-explain-why-mueller-is-finally-resigning/?utm_source=&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=265 (https://www.rawstory.com/2019/05/a-major-development-in-roger-stones-case-may-explain-why-mueller-is-finally-resigning/?utm_source=&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=265)

[Spurs Homer]

Lolololol

”dirty,filthy, disgusting word”

[djohn2oo8]

Flynn’s interactions with the Russians that were redacted should be released tomorrow

[boutons_deux]

‘Freudian slip?’ The internet mocks Trump for tweeting his own confession that Russia helped him

President Donald Trump claimed a right to obstruct justice — and accidentally admitted that Russia helped get him elected.

The president spent Thursday morning raging about special counsel Robert Mueller,

who delivered his first public remarks about the Russia investigation the day before, and

insisted his apparent efforts to impede the probe were justified because he thought the case was unfair.

“Russia, Russia, Russia!” Trump tweeted. “That’s all you heard at the beginning of this Witch Hunt Hoax…And now Russia has disappeared because

I had nothing to do with Russia helping me to get elected. :lol :lol :lol

It was a crime that didn’t exist.”

https://www.rawstory.com/2019/05/fre...8460&list_id=1 (https://www.rawstory.com/2019/05/freudian-slip-the-internet-mocks-trump-for-tweeting-his-own-confession-that-russia-helped-him/?utm_source=&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=265&recip_id=298460&list_id=1)

[djohn2oo8]

:lmao Trump pissed at Mueller

[boutons_deux]

He's pretty much neutered outside of SCOTUS appointments at this point.

Let him rot where he is.

nope, impeach him with a huge Articles of Impeachment, as campaign strategy, and include, at very least, the years of lying and secret talks with mortal adversary Pootin, and believing Pootin "didn't do it" while calling USA IC Russian findings a hoax

Trash U fraud and Trash charity fraud are also grounds for impeachment.

the Articles of Impeachment could be, and should be, inclusive of all the absolute SHIT by Trash and his mafiya.

NONE of it has to be criminal, simply unfitting, unbecoming of the office of the President.

The Repug Senate can toxic slime itself by refusing to Trash, but that's also a Dem campaign tactic.

[djohn2oo8]

1134115113768837121


Guy reallly telling on himself

[lefty]

1134099038100500481

[Winehole23]

Andrew Johnson, Wlliam J. Clinton, Donald J. Trump.

[boutons_deux]

"The closer to the election the better."

this shit takes time, start now, with LONG Articles of Impeachment, including the kitchen sink

"If he gets impeached and removed,"

Senate needs 2/3 to convict, ain't gonna happen, but impeachment is sufficient

[CitizenDwayne]

Dude he is getttinf re-elected
If you had the option, would you prefer him step down & be replaced by Pence?

[Reck]

Trump as president. Cant still wrap my head around that beauty.

What a stupid motherfucker. :lol America

[Spurtacular]

1134099038100500481

That's not true. Any impeachment that does not adhere to Constitutionality can be overturned by the Supreme Court.It's a little thing called checks and balances.

[Pavlov]

That's not true. Any impeachment that does not adhere to Constitutionality can be overturned by the Supreme Court.It's a little thing called checks and balances.Link?

[Reck]

That's not true. Any impeachment that does not adhere to Constitutionality can be overturned by the Supreme Court.It's a little thing called checks and balances.

You're talking out of the place you like cocks in. :lol

Then again, you never know what you're talking about, derp.

[Spurtacular]

Link?

:lol You really don't understand that concept, compulsive psychopav ?

[spurraider21]

the chief justice of the supreme court presides over impeachment hearings. that's your check and balance.

[Pavlov]

:lol You really don't understand that concept, compulsive psychopav ?I understand the concept.

I just think you're completely wrong.

Show your link saying an impeachment can be overturned by the Supreme Court. A black letter statute or SCOTUS decision would be best.

[Spurtacular]

You're talking out of the place you like cocks in. :lol

Then again, you never know what you're talking about, derp.

Tranny got too much cocks on the brain to make sense. Par.

[Spurtacular]

I understand the concept.

I just think you're completely wrong.

Show your link saying an impeachment can be overturned by the Supreme Court. A black letter statute or SCOTUS decision would be best.

:lmao Your contention is that the house can do something unconstitutional and the Supreme Court is powerless to overturn it.
:lmao Compulsive psychopav.

:rollin :rollin :rollin

[Pavlov]

:lmao Your contention is that the house can do something unconstitutional and the Supreme Court is powerless to overturn it.My contention is that the impeachment process is a power solely granted to Congress by the Constitution and not subject to SCOTUS review.

Your contention is that the impeachment process is subject to SCOTUS review.

Prove it.

[Spurtacular]

the chief justice of the supreme court presides over impeachment hearings. that's your check and balance.

That'd be sufficient if his title was majesty of the courts.

[Spurtacular]

My contention is that the impeachment process is a power solely granted to Congress by the Constitution and not subject to SCOTUS review.

Your contention is that the impeachment process is subject to SCOTUS review.

Prove it.

And where does it say that it is not subject to judicial review?

[boutons_deux]

Congress can impeach/convict anybody. The judicial branch is not involved

https://law.justia.com/constitution/us/article-2/56-judicial-review-of-impeachments.html

and for any reason, say Congress didn't like odor emanating from Trash.

[Winehole23]

Tranny got too much cocks on the brain to make sense. Par.Nothing but on the tranny train, I've heard.

Let us know when you hit the end of the line so we can give the all clear to the kids.

[Pavlov]

And where does it say that it is not subject to judicial review?Right here:


Petitioner Walter L. Nixon, Jr., asks this Court to decide whether Senate Rule XI, which allows a committee of Senators to hear evidence against an individual who has been impeached and to report that evidence to the full Senate, violates the Impeachment Trial Clause, Art. I, § 3, cl. 6. That Clause provides that the "Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments." But before we reach the merits of such a claim, we must decide whether it is "justiciable," that is, whether it is a claim that may be resolved by the courts. We conclude that it is not.

Nixon v. United States, et.al. (1993) (https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/112803/nixon-v-united-states/)


The SCOTUS decision was based on this clause of the US Constitution:


The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-1/section-3/clause-6–7


All that says the US Senate has the last word on impeachments.


Let's see the laws and court decisions that back up your claim.

[spurraider21]

And where does it say that it is not subject to judicial review?
a) the constitution states that the house of representatives has the sole power of impeachment
b) it would defeat checks and balances to allow SCOTUS to review impeachments, because impeachment is the only way to remove a SCOTUS justice in the first place
c) the supreme court has previously held that impeachments are not subject to review https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/506/224/#tab-opinion-1959127

[spurraider21]

ah, pavlov beat me to the nixon vs us ruling

[spurraider21]

Let's see the laws and court decisions that back up your claim.
talking to a guy who thinks that trump has unilateral authority to fire supreme court justices whenever he pleases

[Pavlov]

talking to a guy who thinks that trump has unilateral authority to fire supreme court justices whenever he pleasesEh, I just want to see how he tries to change the subject from proving his claim.

Let's watch.

[Pavlov]

https://media.giphy.com/media/pz7X6ivsb8KaEO9D4F/giphy.gif

[Spurtacular]

Right here:



Nixon v. United States, et.al. (1993) (https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/112803/nixon-v-united-states/)


The SCOTUS decision was based on this clause of the US Constitution:



https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-1/section-3/clause-6–7


All that says the US Senate has the last word on impeachments.


Let's see the laws and court decisions that back up your claim.

The SC would not be trying the impeachment, dipshit. They can rule on the constitutionality of any impeachment, however.

[Spurtacular]

a) the constitution states that the house of representatives has the sole power of impeachment
b) it would defeat checks and balances to allow SCOTUS to review impeachments, because impeachment is the only way to remove a SCOTUS justice in the first place
c) the supreme court has previously held that impeachments are not subject to review https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/506/224/#tab-opinion-1959127

Again, I'm not debating who has the power of impeachment. The Constitution is clear about what the impeachable offense are. If they were to impeach over an offense that is unconstitutional, they'd not only have the power to strike it down, but the duty to do so.

That case you and your chumpian overlord quote is a a ruling on Senatorial procedure. It's laughable that you interpret that as meaning that they cannot rule on any impeachment case.

[Spurtacular]

https://66.media.tumblr.com/5e18c42b9e9e791ed3cd193ebe4535bc/tumblr_ozlmwg0ddj1t2duu7o1_400.gif

[spurraider21]

Again, I'm not debating who has the power of impeachment. The Constitution is clear about what the impeachable offense are. If they were to impeach over an offense that is unconstitutional, they'd not only have the power to strike it down, but the duty to do so.

That case you and your chumpian overlord quote is a a ruling on Senatorial procedure. It's laughable that you interpret that as meaning that they cannot rule on any impeachment case.
SCOTUS specifically said they cannot review impeachments in that case :lol

[boutons_deux]

"The Constitution is clear about what the impeachable offense are. "

You Lie

Congress can impeach/convict for any damn thing it wants. "high crimes and misdemeanors" are not required

[Spurtacular]

SCOTUS specifically said they cannot review impeachments in that case :lol

They said they cannot review that particular procedural matter b/c it was not unconstitutional.

:lmao Lite pretending that is some sort of sweeping case on impeachment rulings.

[Spurtacular]

"The Constitution is clear about what the impeachable offense are. "

You Lie

Congress can impeach/convict for any damn thing it wants. "high crimes and misdemeanors" are not required




Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

Yup. Required.

[spurraider21]

They said they cannot review that particular procedural matter b/c it was not unconstitutional.

:lmao Lite pretending that is some sort of sweeping case on impeachment rulings.
i'm sorry the constitution and the case law don't say what you wanted it to say

[boutons_deux]

http://www.pensitoreview.com/Wordpress/wp-content/uploads/61499118_10158616632989126_1243531145455337472_n.j pg

[Spurtacular]

i'm sorry the constitution and the case law don't say what you wanted it to say

The case law does not say SC can never rule on a case involving impeachment. You're a shitty lawyer.

[Spurtacular]

**

[Blake]

The case law does not say SC can never rule on a case involving impeachment. You're a shitty lawyer.

You're a fucking idiot

[Pavlov]

The SC would not be trying the impeachment, dipshit. They can rule on the constitutionality of any impeachment, however.No. The SCOTUS decision I posted completely shit on you.

Post anything that supports your claim.

Any court case.

Any law.

[Pavlov]

The case law does not say SC can never rule on a case involving impeachment. You're a shitty lawyer.That's exactly what it says, derp.

Did you even read my post?

[Spurtacular]

You're a fucking idiot

You're not allowed to have an opinion. Remember, cuck?

:lmao

[Spurtacular]

No. The SCOTUS decision I posted completely shit on you.



That's exactly what it says, derp.

Did you even read my post?

Psychopav truth.

[Blake]

You're not allowed to have an opinion. Remember, cuck?

:lmao

It's not just an opinion. It's a fact you're an illiterate fucking retard. You shit this place up with your stupidity.

[Pavlov]

Psychopav truth.OK, derp -- still waiting on your laws and court precedents that support your claim.

Let's see them.

[Spurtacular]

It's not just an opinion. It's a fact you're an illiterate fucking retard. You shit this place up with your stupidity.

It's an opinion; and you're not authorized to have one.

[Spurtacular]

OK, derp -- still waiting on your laws and court precedents that support your claim.

Let's see them.

You're going to keep waiting. Thus far, the Congress has not successfully impeached a president for an unconstitutional reason.

[Chucho]

It's not just an opinion. It's a fact you're an illiterate fucking retard. You shit this place up with your stupidity.

:rollin

[Pavlov]

You're going to keep waiting. Thus far, the Congress has not successfully impeached a president for an unconstitutional reason.What would be an unconstitutional reason, derp?

Explain.

[Spurtacular]

What would be an unconstitutional reason, derp?

Explain.

This has been covered psychopav. And in any event, this isn't rocket science.

[Spurtacular]

:rollin

:lmao Hitchin' yourself to an unhinged cuck.
:lmao The crustiness consumes you.

[Pavlov]

This has been covered psychopav.No. You didn't cover it at all.

Don't lie on top of everything.

Post your laws and court cases that back up your claim.

I did.

[Spurtacular]

No. You didn't cover it at all.


Psychopav truth.

[Pavlov]

Psychopav truth.Post the laws and court cases that back up your claim.

I did.

Why can't you?

[RandomGuy]

Psychopav truth.

Logic 101, by Robert Mueller:


"If we thought the president did not commit a crime, we would have said so."

We did not say so.

Ergo:_______________________________


Fill in the blank, moron.

[Chris]

Trump as president. Cant still wrap my head around that beauty.

What a stupid motherfucker. :lol America

lol "Can't still"

[boutons_deux]

Kenny Starr recommended impeachment, why didn't Boy Scout Mueller?

Fuck the OLC memos supporting an imperial, lawless presidency

[boutons_deux]

“There is Substantial and Credible Information that President Clinton Committed Acts that May Constitute Grounds for an Impeachment.”

That’s on page five of the Starr Report…right after the table of contents.

“If we had confidence the President didn’t commit a crime, we would have said so.”

(And that’s the end of the story, after pages and pages of reading — no recommendation, no conclusion, no “yes” or “no” to impeachment hearings)

That’s Mueller today (and in his report.)

Wait — what the?

Do you see the difference?

Could it be any bigger?

Let me spell it out.

Starr was absolutely crystal clear, direct, and unequivocal. He reached a formal conclusion .

That was this: crimes may have been committed — Congress needs to hold impeachment hearings to judge for itself now.

He explicitly recommended impeachment hearings (not impeachment, just the hearings.)

Mueller, on the other hand, doesn’t formally conclude…anything.

Nothing at all.

He doesn’t use the word impeachment, or grounds, or constitute.

He just leaves everything…to the reader. We have to infer. Guess. Grasp in the dark.

What the hell does he actually mean?

The problem is that Mueller’s non-conclusion can mean anything anyone wants it to mean. "

https://eand.co/ken-starr-recommended-impeachment-so-why-wont-mueller-fdd35b611562

I bet this negative evaluation of Mueller will become more common, esp if Pelosi chickens out and/or Trash is reelected.

[boutons_deux]

William Barr contradicts his congressional testimony on Trump obstruction in new interview

Attorney General William Barr contradicted his congressional testimony during an interview broadcast by CBS News.

explained why he did not agree that evidence presented in the report amounted to obstruction of justice by President Donald Trump.

“We didn’t agree with the legal analysis, a lot of the legal analysis in the report,” Barr said.

“It did not reflect the views of the department, :lol

it was the views of a particular lawyer or lawyers. So we applied what we thought was the right law.” :lol

But that contradicts what Barr told the Senate Judiciary Committee

“Although we disagreed with some of the special counsel’s legal theories and felt that some of the episodes examined did not amount to obstruction as a matter of law,”

Barr told Congress at the start of the month,

“we accepted the special counsel’s legal framework for purposes of our analysis and

evaluated the analysis as presented by the special counsel in reaching our conclusion.”

https://www.rawstory.com/2019/05/watch-william-barr-contradicts-his-congressional-testimony-on-trump-obstruction-in-new-interview/?utm_source=&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=272 (https://www.rawstory.com/2019/05/watch-william-barr-contradicts-his-congressional-testimony-on-trump-obstruction-in-new-interview/?utm_source=&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=272)

Lying scumbags can't keep their body of lies coherent.

[Spurs Homer]

“There is Substantial and Credible Information that President Clinton Committed Acts that May Constitute Grounds for an Impeachment.”

That’s on page five of the Starr Report…right after the table of contents.

“If we had confidence the President didn’t commit a crime, we would have said so.”

(And that’s the end of the story, after pages and pages of reading — no recommendation, no conclusion, no “yes” or “no” to impeachment hearings)

That’s Mueller today (and in his report.)

Wait — what the?

Do you see the difference?

Could it be any bigger?

Let me spell it out.

Starr was absolutely crystal clear, direct, and unequivocal. He reached a formal conclusion .

That was this: crimes may have been committed — Congress needs to hold impeachment hearings to judge for itself now.

He explicitly recommended impeachment hearings (not impeachment, just the hearings.)

Mueller, on the other hand, doesn’t formally conclude…anything.

Nothing at all.

He doesn’t use the word impeachment, or grounds, or constitute.

He just leaves everything…to the reader. We have to infer. Guess. Grasp in the dark.

What the hell does he actually mean?

The problem is that Mueller’s non-conclusion can mean anything anyone wants it to mean. "

https://eand.co/ken-starr-recommended-impeachment-so-why-wont-mueller-fdd35b611562

I bet this negative evaluation of Mueller will become more common, esp if Pelosi chickens out and/or Trash is reelected.

I believe the reason is that after the Clinton impeachment -

Congress changed the rules - and the OLC memo was changed to PREVENT another impeachment of a sitting president.

Mueller was bound by that memo -

although I agree -

Mueller should have challenged that memo - or maybe he tried and Rosenstein/Barr did not allow it.

[Spurs Homer]

William Barr contradicts his congressional testimony on Trump obstruction in new interview

Attorney General William Barr contradicted his congressional testimony during an interview broadcast by CBS News.

explained why he did not agree that evidence presented in the report amounted to obstruction of justice by President Donald Trump.

“We didn’t agree with the legal analysis, a lot of the legal analysis in the report,” Barr said.

“It did not reflect the views of the department, :lol

it was the views of a particular lawyer or lawyers. So we applied what we thought was the right law.” :lol

But that contradicts what Barr told the Senate Judiciary Committee

“Although we disagreed with some of the special counsel’s legal theories and felt that some of the episodes examined did not amount to obstruction as a matter of law,”

Barr told Congress at the start of the month,

“we accepted the special counsel’s legal framework for purposes of our analysis and

evaluated the analysis as presented by the special counsel in reaching our conclusion.”

https://www.rawstory.com/2019/05/watch-william-barr-contradicts-his-congressional-testimony-on-trump-obstruction-in-new-interview/?utm_source=&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=272 (https://www.rawstory.com/2019/05/watch-william-barr-contradicts-his-congressional-testimony-on-trump-obstruction-in-new-interview/?utm_source=&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=272)

Lying scumbags can't keep their body of lies coherent.




Barr: "we applied what we thought was the right law"

Barr under questioning under oath to Kamala Harris:

Harris: Did you review all of the underlying evidence before making a prosecutorial decision to not charge the president with obstruction?


Barr: "no"

So Barr made the biggest prosecutorial decision of the last 100 years regarding a president - WITHOUT reviewing all the evidence.


But - the CULT is ok with this.

[boutons_deux]

I believe the reason is that after the Clinton impeachment -

Congress changed the rules - and the OLC memo was changed to PREVENT another impeachment of a sitting president.

Mueller was bound by that memo -

although I agree -

Mueller should have challenged that memo - or maybe he tried and Rosenstein/Barr did not allow it.

He can write his own fucking OLC memo to achieve whatever objectives.

"The New York Times (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/22/us/politics/can-president-be-indicted-kenneth-starr-memo.html?rref=collection%2Fbyline%2Fcharlie-savage&action=click&contentCollection=undefined&region=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=1&pgtype=collection&_r=0) recently unearthed a thorough legal memo (https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/07/22/us/document-Savage-NYT-FOIA-Starr-memo-presidential.html), prepared twenty years ago for Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr, that advances the view that a sitting president can be indicted while still in office.

For those keeping score, this new memo sharpens an internal divide within the Department of Justice on this important question.

Two memos authored by the Office of Legal Counsel—

one in 1973 (https://fas.org/irp/agency/doj/olc/092473.pdf), in the midst of the Nixon impeachment saga,

the other in 2000 (https://www.justice.gov/file/19351/download), on the heels of the Clinton impeachment saga—

take the view that a sitting president is immune from indictment.

By contrast, two different memos—

authored by the Office of Special Counsel (https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B6mkR0LD6dl3SnJ6VDdkVHpXTk0) investigating Nixon, and

the Office of Independent Counsel (https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/07/22/us/document-Savage-NYT-FOIA-Starr-memo-presidential.html) investigating Clinton—

reach the opposite conclusion."

https://www.lawfareblog.com/mueller-bound-olcs-memos-presidential-immunity (https://www.lawfareblog.com/mueller-bound-olcs-memos-presidential-immunity)

OLC memos are NOT the fucking law, are not Constitutional, but purely political documents, fuckin "memos".

Boy Scout Mueller chickened the fuck out.

I wonder how many of his team disagreed with his no-conclusion, no-recommendation bullshit

[Spurs Homer]

He can write his own fucking OLC memo to achieve whatever objectives.

"The New York Times (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/22/us/politics/can-president-be-indicted-kenneth-starr-memo.html?rref=collection%2Fbyline%2Fcharlie-savage&action=click&contentCollection=undefined&region=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=1&pgtype=collection&_r=0) recently unearthed a thorough legal memo (https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/07/22/us/document-Savage-NYT-FOIA-Starr-memo-presidential.html), prepared twenty years ago for Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr, that advances the view that a sitting president can be indicted while still in office.

For those keeping score, this new memo sharpens an internal divide within the Department of Justice on this important question.

Two memos authored by the Office of Legal Counsel—

one in 1973 (https://fas.org/irp/agency/doj/olc/092473.pdf), in the midst of the Nixon impeachment saga,

the other in 2000 (https://www.justice.gov/file/19351/download), on the heels of the Clinton impeachment saga—

take the view that a sitting president is immune from indictment.

By contrast, two different memos—

authored by the Office of Special Counsel (https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B6mkR0LD6dl3SnJ6VDdkVHpXTk0) investigating Nixon, and

the Office of Independent Counsel (https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/07/22/us/document-Savage-NYT-FOIA-Starr-memo-presidential.html) investigating Clinton—

reach the opposite conclusion."

https://www.lawfareblog.com/mueller-bound-olcs-memos-presidential-immunity (https://www.lawfareblog.com/mueller-bound-olcs-memos-presidential-immunity)

OLC memos are NOT the fucking law, are not Constitutional, but purely political documents, fuckin "memos".

Boy Scout Mueller chickened the fuck out.

I wonder how many of his team disagreed with his no-conclusion, no-recommendation bullshit





i cannot disagree with you

i want mueller to testify to explain why trump, trump jr, jared

were not compelled to testify

here is what would be happening if a democrat criminal family was committing these crimes;

fox news would be airing impeachment hearings 24/7
the entire criminal family would be on fox tv- testifying
the dem criminal prez would be in jail for perjury, porn star payoffs and conspiracy with russia
the usa would be clutching their pearls due to fox tv going all in

[boutons_deux]

Fuck Fox, TV audience of a few M in a country of 300M+

they don't fucking run the country, except for the old, senile, pissed off, loser white guys

[Chucho]

:lmao Hitchin' yourself to an unhinged cuck.
:lmao The crustiness consumes you.

I was laughing at you. Thanks for paying me tribute AND the free rent.

[Spurtacular]

Post the laws and court cases that back up your claim.

I did.

Why can't you?

You posted a case with a false conclusion.

:lol chump bragging about participation points.

[Spurtacular]

Logic 101, by Robert Mueller:


"If we thought the president did not commit a crime, we would have said so."

We did not say so.

Ergo:_______________________________


Fill in the blank, moron.

He also said there is no case for obstruction or collusion, moron.

[Pavlov]

You posted a case with a false conclusion.How is the conclusion false?

I quoted the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States in a unanimous binding decision.

I also quoted the Constitution of the United States of America which was the basis of that unanimous binding decision.

You haven't posted anything to support your claim that SCOTUS can just undo an impeachment.

Let's see the law and court decisions that back up your claim.

[spurraider21]

He also said there is no case for obstruction or collusion, moron.
bullshit

[RandomGuy]

He also said there is no case for obstruction or collusion, moron.

He did. If you had read the report, you would know that.

[Pavlov]

:lol derp just flaunting his ignorance left and right

[RandomGuy]

He also said there is no case for obstruction or collusion, moron.

Logic 101, by Robert Mueller:

"If we thought the president did not commit a crime, we would have said so."

We did not say so.

Ergo:_______________________________

Fill in the blank, moron.

[RandomGuy]

bullshit

Spurty "heard about it". He "knows" what it said. :rolleyes

[Spurtacular]

I was laughing at you. Thanks for paying me tribute AND the free rent.

:lmao Bridling yourself to the village cuck.

[Chucho]

:lmao Bridling yourself to the village cuck.

Said the delusional forum sociopath that is the personal toilet of the board.

[boutons_deux]

Bill Barr just revealed how flimsy his concerns about ‘spying’ against the Trump campaign really are

Attorney General Bill Barr is leading a crusade against the people who initiated an investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 election and its connections to President Donald Trump’s campaign,

but he has never explained why he has such serious suspicions.

JAN CRAWFORD: Do you think enough was done in 2016?

WILLIAM BARR: Enough was done in 2016? Probably not. You know, I think Bob Mueller did some impressive work in his investigation, you know, identifying some of the Russian hackers and their influence campaign and you sort of wonder if that kind of work had been done starting in 2016, things could have been a lot different.

JAN CRAWFORD: Right because it’s just hard to understand why it wasn’t taken more seriously.

WILLIAM BARR: Right.

JAN CRAWFORD: Why do you think it was not?

WILLIAM BARR: I have no idea. That’s one of the things I’m interested in looking at you know–

JAN CRAWFORD: –As part of the review?

WILLIAM BARR: Yes. In other words, you know, there are statements being made that people were warned back in April–

JAN CRAWFORD: –of 2016–

WILLIAM BARR: Right and I don’t have any reason to doubt that, but I’m wondering what exactly was the response to it if they were alarmed.

Surely the response should have been more than just, you know, dangling a confidential informant in front of a peripheral player in the Trump Campaign.

====

Consider what this last statement means. He suggests that the Obama administration probably didn’t do enough in 2016 in response to Russia’s interference and that they didn’t take it seriously.

He went on to say:

People have to understand, you know, one of the things here is that these efforts in 2016,

these counter-intelligence activities that were directed at the Trump Campaign,

were not done in the normal course and not through the normal procedures

as a far as I can tell. :lol

And a lot of the people who were involved are no longer there.


https://www.rawstory.com/2019/05/bill-barr-just-revealed-how-flimsy-his-concerns-about-spying-against-the-trump-campaign-really-are/ (https://www.rawstory.com/2019/05/bill-barr-just-revealed-how-flimsy-his-concerns-about-spying-against-the-trump-campaign-really-are/)


What are the "normal procedures" for monitoring widespread, repetitive contacts between Trash's mafiya and an mortal adversary who was KNOWN to be attacking the American elections?

Will Barr ever say the it was McConnell who blocked Obama, seeking a bipartisan announcement, from announcing the Russians were attacking?

[boutons_deux]

GOP attorneys release a devastating video that lays out the case for Trump’s prosecution

A group of prominent Republican attorneys this week released a new video arguing that President Donald Trump would have been charged with obstruction of justice by special counsel Robert Mueller had Department of Justice guidelines allowed for the indictment of a sitting president.

The video features three prominent lawyers who have served under Republican presidents:

Jeffrey Harris, who served as deputy associate Attorney General under President Ronald Reagan;

Paul Rosenzweig, a deputy assistant Secretary of Homeland Security for former President George W. Bush; and

Donald Ayer, who served as deputy Attorney General for George H.W. Bush.

arguing that Attorney General Bill

Barr did not present a “fair and accurate” summary of special counsel Robert Mueller’s report on Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election, and

they say he left out important information to make the report seem far less damning than it actually was with regards to whether the president obstructed justice.

“Obstruction of justice and perjury are far more important than most normal crimes,” Rosenzweig explains to viewers.

“They go to the absolute core of how the rule of law functions in this society.”

“One of the most disturbing things to me is the conduct of Republicans, in the Senate and in the House,” he said.

“These are actually smart people.

They know that there is a damning case, in the Mueller report, of obstruction of justice by the president, and

they are acting like it’s not.

And that’s just flatly dishonest." :lol Honesty in Repugs? G M A F B :lol

https://www.rawstory.com/2019/05/gop-attorneys-release-a-devastating-video-that-lays-out-the-case-for-trumps-prosecution/

[DarrinS]

Logic 101, by Robert Mueller:

"If we thought the president did not commit a crime, we would have said so."

We did not say so.

Ergo:_______________________________

Fill in the blank, moron.


If I thought you were not a pedophile, I would have said so. I didn't say so. Ergo: .................

[Pavlov]

If I thought you were not a pedophile, I would have said so. I didn't say so. Ergo: .................Do you think he's a pedophile, Darrin?

[DarrinS]

Do you think he's a pedophile, Darrin?

I can't exonerate him.

[spurraider21]

If I thought you were not a pedophile, I would have said so. I didn't say so. Ergo: .................


Do you think he's a pedophile, Darrin?


I can't exonerate him.
its a bit different since you're just saying something out of your ass and mueller is saying it at the conclusion of a 2 year investigation into exactly that issue

you continue to prove that you are either stupid or disingenuous

[RandomGuy]

I can't exonerate him.


Barr has so far successfully used his position to sell the president’s false narrative to the American people. This will continue if those who have read the report do not start pushing back on his misrepresentations and share the truth.

[Pavlov]

I can't exonerate him.OK, show us your investigation into his alleged pedophilia, Darrin.

[RandomGuy]

I can't exonerate him.

You try. So. Hard.

FIRST FELONY
E. Efforts to fire Mueller
Obstructive act (p. 87): Former White House Counsel Don McGahn is a “credible witness” in providing evidence that Trump indeed attempted to fire Mueller. This “would qualify as an obstructive act” if the firing “would naturally obstruct the investigation and any grand jury proceedings that might flow from the inquiry.”
Nexus (p. 89): “Substantial evidence” indicates that, at this point, Trump was aware that “his conduct was under investigation by a federal prosecutor who could present any evidence of federal crimes to a grand jury.”
Intent (p. 89): “Substantial evidence indicates that the President’s attempts to remove the Special Counsel were linked to the Special Counsel’s oversight of investigations that involved the President’s conduct[.]”

SECOND FELONY
F. Efforts to curtail Mueller
Obstructive act (p. 97): Trump’s effort to force Sessions to confine the investigation to only investigating future election interference “would qualify as an obstructive act if it would naturally obstruct the investigation and any grand jury proceedings that might flow from the inquiry.” “Taken together, the President’s directives indicate that Sessions was being instructed to tell the Special Counsel to end the existing investigation into the President and his campaign[.]”
Nexus (p. 97): At the relevant point, “the existence of a grand jury investigation supervised by the Special Counsel was public knowledge.”
Intent (p. 97): “Substantial evidence” indicates that Trump’s efforts were “intended to prevent further investigative scrutiny of the President’s and his campaign’s conduct.”
THIRD FELONY
I. Order to McGahn to deny Trump’s order to fire Mueller
Obstructive act (p. 118): This effort “would qualify as an obstructive act if it had the natural tendency to constrain McGahn from testifying truthfully or to undermine his credibility as a potential witness[.]” There is “some evidence” that Trump genuinely believed press reports that he had ordered McGahn to fire Mueller were wrong. However, “[o]ther evidence cuts against that understanding of the president’s conduct”—and the special counsel lists a great deal more evidence on this latter point.
Nexus (p. 119): At this point “the Special Counsel’s use of a grand jury had been further confirmed by the return of several indictments.” Mueller’s office had indicated to Trump’s lawyers that it was investigating obstruction, and Trump knew that McGahn had already been interviewed by Mueller on the topic. “That evidence indicates the President’s awareness” that his efforts to fire Mueller were relevant to official proceedings. Trump “likely contemplated the ongoing investigation and any proceedings arising from it” in directing McGahn to create a false record of the earlier interaction.
Intent (p. 120): “Substantial evidence indicates that … the President acted for the purpose of influencing McGahn’s account in order to deflect or prevent further scrutiny” of Trump.

FOURTH FELONY
J. Conduct toward... Manafort
Obstructive act (p. 131): “The President’s actions toward witnesses … would qualify as obstructive if they had the natural tendency to prevent particular witnesses from testifying truthfully, or otherwise would have the probable effect of influencing, delaying, or preventing their testimony to law enforcement.” ...Regarding Manafort, “there is evidence that the President’s actions had the potential” to influence Manafort’s thinking on cooperation, and his public statements “had the potential to influence the trial jury.”
Nexus (p. 132): Trump’s actions toward [Manafort and others] “appear to have been connected to pending or anticipated official proceedings involving each individual.”
Intent (p. 132): “[e]vidence … indicates that the President intended to encourage Manafort not to cooperate with the government”.



... still you own yourself.

Every.
Single.
Time.

Fucking idiot.

[Spurminator]

Given that Darrin has bought in full the conspiracy theory that the deep state is trying to overthrow the Trump regime, I wouldn't expect him to differentiate in favor of the Mueller investigation.

[RandomGuy]

I can't exonerate him.


But, in fact, Mueller finds considerable evidence that several of Trump’s actions detailed in the report meet the elements of obstruction, and Mueller’s constitutional and prudential issues with indicting a sitting president would preclude indictment regardless of what he found.

[Pavlov]

Given that Darrin has bought in full the conspiracy theory that the deep state is trying to overthrow the Trump regime, I wouldn't expect him to differentiate in favor of the Mueller investigation.Looks more like he's buying into the "dems are pedophiles" TSAQ narrative.

[RandomGuy]

If I thought you were not a pedophile, I would have said so. I didn't say so. Ergo: .................


... and

Fuck you. Go eat a dick, twatwaffle.

There are few things that I would ever really want to get in a fight over, but being accused of being pedophile is one of them. That is low even for you. Consider yourself lucky we aren't in the same room.

[ChumpDumper]

You're going to keep waiting. Thus far, the Congress has not successfully impeached a president for an unconstitutional reason.
What is an unconstitutional reason, derp?

The court said it couldn't review impeachments at all.

Period.

lol derp

[DarrinS]

its a bit different since you're just saying something out of your ass and mueller is saying it at the conclusion of a 2 year investigation into exactly that issue

you continue to prove that you are either stupid or disingenuous


There was no point in Mueller saying it. He's not in the exoneration business.

[DarrinS]

... and

Fuck you. Go eat a dick, twatwaffle.

There are few things that I would ever really want to get in a fight over, but being accused of being pedophile is one of them. That is low even for you. Consider yourself lucky we aren't in the same room.


Imagine how angry you would be if you were investigated for being a pedo for two years, they found no evidence, but said they couldn't exonerate you.

[spurraider21]

There was no point in Mueller saying it. He's not in the exoneration business.
changing the subject.

do you see a legitimate distinction between some arbitrary claim of RG being a pedo (or whatever, i know its all to make a point and not an actual allegation) and a statement following a 2 year investigation?

[ChumpDumper]

Imagine how angry you would be if you were investigated for being a pedo for two years, they found no evidence, but said they couldn't exonerate you.

What if they found a lot of evidence but we're prohibited from indicting you because of department policy, Darrin?

[Trey Gowdy]

changing the subject.

do you see a legitimate distinction between some arbitrary claim of RG being a pedo (or whatever, i know its all to make a point and not an actual allegation) and a statement following a 2 year investigation?


What if they found a lot of evidence but we're prohibited from indicting you because of department policy, Darrin?
This is about the point where Darrin goes onto hiding, or posts a youtube of some shitty comedy routine.

[spurraider21]

Imagine how angry you would be if you were investigated for being a pedo for two years, they found no evidence, but said they couldn't exonerate you.
they took very different tones with respect to collusion and obstruction.

if somebody investigated me for two years and concluded that their investigation did not identify any evidence of any pedophlic activity or intent, then yeah i'd be pretty satisfied with that.

thats what mueller said about collusion.

[Spurtacular]

Logic 101, by Robert Mueller:

"If we thought the president did not commit a crime, we would have said so."

We did not say so.

Ergo:_______________________________

Fill in the blank, moron.

That means he absolutely won't rule it out. That's a nothing burger with cheese, kidnapper.

[DarrinS]

changing the subject.

do you see a legitimate distinction between some arbitrary claim of RG being a pedo (or whatever, i know its all to make a point and not an actual allegation) and a statement following a 2 year investigation?

Yes, a hypothetical is not an actual allegation. Can't believe he got pissed about that.

[Reck]

Derp passing the shit on me baton to Darrin in this thread is a sight to behold. :lol

[spurraider21]

Yes, a hypothetical is not an actual allegation. Can't believe he got pissed about that.
ditto tbh :lol

but still not answering the question

[Spurminator]

if somebody investigated me for two years and concluded that their investigation did not identify any evidence of any pedophlic activity or intent, then yeah i'd be pretty satisfied with that.

I'm guessing you'd probably agree to questioning, discovery and anything else that would clear you... instead of avoiding questioning, asking your friends and family to avoid questioning, and instructing your friends in law enforcement for help shutting down the investigation.

[Spurtacular]

The court said it couldn't review impeachments at all.

Period.



Psychopav truth.

[Spurtacular]

There was no point in Mueller saying it. He's not in the exoneration business.

Definitely ulterior motives in play there. It's no matter to hangers-on like the chumpettes.

[spurraider21]

I'm guessing you'd probably agree to questioning, discovery and anything else that would clear you... instead of avoiding questioning, asking your friends and family to avoid questioning, and instructing your friends in law enforcement for help shutting down the investigation.
imagine your son took a meeting with somebody who said they can hook your family up with some great 8 year old pussy, and he replied SOUNDS GREAT, and then at the meeting he learned there actually was no such offer. and that was his defense. and then you instructed him to tell the public that the meeting was about something else

[Pavlov]

Psychopav truth.It's right there in the quote, derp.

Did you even read it?

SCOTUS cannot review impeachments.

SCOTUS said so.

Unanimously.

lol derp

[koriwhat]

imagine your son took a meeting with somebody who said they can hook your family up with some great 8 year old pussy, and he replied SOUNDS GREAT, and then at the meeting he learned there actually was no such offer. and that was his defense. and then you instructed him to tell the public that the meeting was about something else

Now imagine the other side set that meeting up and got the act8ng AG to sign off on a passport for said russian lawyer, same lawyer who met with fusiongps prior and right after that failed meeting with jr... keep leaving all the details out. :tu

[koriwhat]

I can't wait for the weak liberal pussy men here to shed some more tears when barr finally makes his strike.

[spurraider21]

Now imagine the other side set that meeting up and got the act8ng AG to sign off on a passport for said russian lawyer, same lawyer who met with fusiongps prior and right after that failed meeting with jr... keep leaving all the details out. :tu
:lol nobody forced him to say SOUNDS GREAT and take a meeting with somebody who he believed to be in possession of illegally acquired documents

[koriwhat]

:lol nobody forced him to say SOUNDS GREAT and take a meeting with somebody who he believed to be in possession of illegally acquired documents

Illegally? Lol! What docs exactly? Opposition research and collusion both aren't illegal but i doubt you had a clue about that. Now who were the sources of that dossier and who paid for it? There's your RussiaGate tbh.

[Pavlov]

lol at least the Russian conspiracies made something resembling logical sense.

This "coup" shit Darrin et.al. have been trying to sell falls apart at the slightest scrutiny.

[spurraider21]

Illegally? Lol! What docs exactly? Opposition research and collusion both aren't illegal but i doubt you had a clue about that. Now who were the sources of that dossier and who paid for it? There's your RussiaGate tbh.
you're right.

trump tower meeting wasn't about stolen emails. my bad there.

[RandomGuy]

Imagine how angry you would be if you were investigated for being a pedo for two years, they found no evidence, but said they couldn't exonerate you.

FIRST FELONY
E. Efforts to fire Mueller
Obstructive act (p. 87): Former White House Counsel Don McGahn is a “credible witness” in providing evidence that Trump indeed attempted to fire Mueller. This “would qualify as an obstructive act” if the firing “would naturally obstruct the investigation and any grand jury proceedings that might flow from the inquiry.”
Nexus (p. 89): “Substantial evidence” indicates that, at this point, Trump was aware that “his conduct was under investigation by a federal prosecutor who could present any evidence of federal crimes to a grand jury.”
Intent (p. 89): “Substantial evidence indicates that the President’s attempts to remove the Special Counsel were linked to the Special Counsel’s oversight of investigations that involved the President’s conduct[.]”

SECOND FELONY
F. Efforts to curtail Mueller
Obstructive act (p. 97): Trump’s effort to force Sessions to confine the investigation to only investigating future election interference “would qualify as an obstructive act if it would naturally obstruct the investigation and any grand jury proceedings that might flow from the inquiry.” “Taken together, the President’s directives indicate that Sessions was being instructed to tell the Special Counsel to end the existing investigation into the President and his campaign[.]”
Nexus (p. 97): At the relevant point, “the existence of a grand jury investigation supervised by the Special Counsel was public knowledge.”
Intent (p. 97): “Substantial evidence” indicates that Trump’s efforts were “intended to prevent further investigative scrutiny of the President’s and his campaign’s conduct.”
THIRD FELONY
I. Order to McGahn to deny Trump’s order to fire Mueller
Obstructive act (p. 118): This effort “would qualify as an obstructive act if it had the natural tendency to constrain McGahn from testifying truthfully or to undermine his credibility as a potential witness[.]” There is “some evidence” that Trump genuinely believed press reports that he had ordered McGahn to fire Mueller were wrong. However, “[o]ther evidence cuts against that understanding of the president’s conduct”—and the special counsel lists a great deal more evidence on this latter point.
Nexus (p. 119): At this point “the Special Counsel’s use of a grand jury had been further confirmed by the return of several indictments.” Mueller’s office had indicated to Trump’s lawyers that it was investigating obstruction, and Trump knew that McGahn had already been interviewed by Mueller on the topic. “That evidence indicates the President’s awareness” that his efforts to fire Mueller were relevant to official proceedings. Trump “likely contemplated the ongoing investigation and any proceedings arising from it” in directing McGahn to create a false record of the earlier interaction.
Intent (p. 120): “Substantial evidence indicates that … the President acted for the purpose of influencing McGahn’s account in order to deflect or prevent further scrutiny” of Trump.

FOURTH FELONY
J. Conduct toward... Manafort
Obstructive act (p. 131): “The President’s actions toward witnesses … would qualify as obstructive if they had the natural tendency to prevent particular witnesses from testifying truthfully, or otherwise would have the probable effect of influencing, delaying, or preventing their testimony to law enforcement.” ...Regarding Manafort, “there is evidence that the President’s actions had the potential” to influence Manafort’s thinking on cooperation, and his public statements “had the potential to influence the trial jury.”
Nexus (p. 132): Trump’s actions toward [Manafort and others] “appear to have been connected to pending or anticipated official proceedings involving each individual.”
Intent (p. 132): “[e]vidence … indicates that the President intended to encourage Manafort not to cooperate with the government”.











Substantial evidence exists that you are a fucking idiot.

[TSA]

FIRST FELONY
E. Efforts to fire Mueller
Obstructive act (p. 87): Former White House Counsel Don McGahn is a “credible witness” in providing evidence that Trump indeed attempted to fire Mueller. This “would qualify as an obstructive act” if the firing “would naturally obstruct the investigation and any grand jury proceedings that might flow from the inquiry.”
Nexus (p. 89): “Substantial evidence” indicates that, at this point, Trump was aware that “his conduct was under investigation by a federal prosecutor who could present any evidence of federal crimes to a grand jury.”
Intent (p. 89): “Substantial evidence indicates that the President’s attempts to remove the Special Counsel were linked to the Special Counsel’s oversight of investigations that involved the President’s conduct[.]”

SECOND FELONY
F. Efforts to curtail Mueller
Obstructive act (p. 97): Trump’s effort to force Sessions to confine the investigation to only investigating future election interference “would qualify as an obstructive act if it would naturally obstruct the investigation and any grand jury proceedings that might flow from the inquiry.” “Taken together, the President’s directives indicate that Sessions was being instructed to tell the Special Counsel to end the existing investigation into the President and his campaign[.]”
Nexus (p. 97): At the relevant point, “the existence of a grand jury investigation supervised by the Special Counsel was public knowledge.”
Intent (p. 97): “Substantial evidence” indicates that Trump’s efforts were “intended to prevent further investigative scrutiny of the President’s and his campaign’s conduct.”
THIRD FELONY
I. Order to McGahn to deny Trump’s order to fire Mueller
Obstructive act (p. 118): This effort “would qualify as an obstructive act if it had the natural tendency to constrain McGahn from testifying truthfully or to undermine his credibility as a potential witness[.]” There is “some evidence” that Trump genuinely believed press reports that he had ordered McGahn to fire Mueller were wrong. However, “[o]ther evidence cuts against that understanding of the president’s conduct”—and the special counsel lists a great deal more evidence on this latter point.
Nexus (p. 119): At this point “the Special Counsel’s use of a grand jury had been further confirmed by the return of several indictments.” Mueller’s office had indicated to Trump’s lawyers that it was investigating obstruction, and Trump knew that McGahn had already been interviewed by Mueller on the topic. “That evidence indicates the President’s awareness” that his efforts to fire Mueller were relevant to official proceedings. Trump “likely contemplated the ongoing investigation and any proceedings arising from it” in directing McGahn to create a false record of the earlier interaction.
Intent (p. 120): “Substantial evidence indicates that … the President acted for the purpose of influencing McGahn’s account in order to deflect or prevent further scrutiny” of Trump.

FOURTH FELONY
J. Conduct toward... Manafort
Obstructive act (p. 131): “The President’s actions toward witnesses … would qualify as obstructive if they had the natural tendency to prevent particular witnesses from testifying truthfully, or otherwise would have the probable effect of influencing, delaying, or preventing their testimony to law enforcement.” ...Regarding Manafort, “there is evidence that the President’s actions had the potential” to influence Manafort’s thinking on cooperation, and his public statements “had the potential to influence the trial jury.”
Nexus (p. 132): Trump’s actions toward [Manafort and others] “appear to have been connected to pending or anticipated official proceedings involving each individual.”
Intent (p. 132): “[e]vidence … indicates that the President intended to encourage Manafort not to cooperate with the government”.











Substantial evidence exists that you are a fucking idiot.

He was obviously talking about two years of the Russian collusion investigation you fucking idiot.

[RandomGuy]

Imagine how angry you would be if you were investigated for being a pedo for two years, they found no evidence, but said they couldn't exonerate you.

Mueller found collusion, you fucking mental gnat. Even by TSA's own definition of the term.

If you had actually read it, instead of being a brainwashed twat, you might know that.

Keep thinking you were told the truth by the conman with decades of lying. You really are that dumb. Go eat a bullet.

[spurraider21]

He was obviously talking about two years of the Russian collusion investigation you fucking idiot.
nope. go back and read what the discussion was about. was specific to obstruction

[RandomGuy]

He was obviously talking about two years of the Russian collusion investigation you fucking idiot.

"other matters that arise" is part of that two year investigation, jackboot.

[spurraider21]

He also said there is no case for obstruction or collusion, moron. TSA this is where the discussion started tbh

[RandomGuy]

He was obviously talking about two years of the Russian collusion investigation you fucking idiot.

But since we are there, Trump Campaign Manager Manafort secretly sharing polling data with a Russian intelligence operative, while Russia was engaged in a systemic disinformation campaign to damage the Clinton campaign, and help the Trump campaign.

Is that, or is it not collusion, jackboot? Secret action to cheat at the election. Your own definition.

[spurraider21]

TSA nevermind. RG is doing his own thing... i was going off the conversation started above

[Pavlov]

He was obviously talking about two years of the Russian collusion investigation you fucking idiot.Makes you wonder why Trump decided to do all that obstruction.

[spurraider21]

But since we are there, Trump Campaign Manager Manafort secretly sharing polling data with a Russian intelligence operative, while Russia was engaged in a systemic disinformation campaign to damage the Clinton campaign, and help the Trump campaign.

Is that, or is it not collusion, jackboot? Secret action to cheat at the election. Your own definition.
mueller himself:

the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities

[RandomGuy]

iii. Paul Manafort’s Two Campaign-Period Meetings with Konstantin Kilimnik in the United States
Manafort twice met with Kilimnik in person during the campaign period — once in May and again in August 2016. The first meeting took place on May 7, 2016, in New York City. In the days leading to the meeting, Kilimnik had been working to gather information about the political situation in Ukraine. That included information gleaned from a trip that former Party of Regions official Yuriy Boyko had recently taken to Moscow — a trip that likely included meetings between Boyko and high-ranking Russian officials. Kilimnik then traveled to Washington, D.C. on or about May 5, 2016; while in Washington, Kilimnik had pre-arranged meetings with State Department employees.

Late on the evening of May 6, Gates arranged for Kilimnik to take a 3:00 a.m. train to meet Manafort in New York for breakfast on May 7. According to Manafort, during the meeting, he and Kilimnik talked about events in Ukraine, and Manafort briefed Kilimnik on the Trump Campaign, expecting Kilimnik to pass the information back to individuals in Ukraine and elsewhere. Manafort stated that Opposition Bloc members recognized Manafort’s position on the Campaign was an opportunity, but Kilimnik did not ask for anything. Kilimnik spoke about a plan of Boyko to boost election participation in the eastern zone of Ukraine, which was the base for the Opposition Bloc. Kilimnik returned to Washington, D.C. right after the meeting with Manafort.

Manafort met with Kilimnik a second time at the Grand Havana Club in New York City on the evening of August 2, 2016. The events leading to the meeting are as follows. On July 28, 2016, Kilimnik flew from Kiev to Moscow. The next day, Kilimnik wrote to Manafort requesting that they meet, using coded language about a conversation he had that day. In an email with a subject line “Black Caviar,” Kilimnik wrote:


I met today with the guy who gave you your biggest black caviar jar several years ago. We spent about 5 hours talking about his story, and I have several important messages from him to you. He asked me to go and brief you on our conversation. I said I have to run it by you first, but in principle I am prepared to do it.... It has to do about the future of his country, and is quite interesting.

anafort identified “the guy who gave you your biggest black caviar jar” as Yanukovych. He explained that, in 2010, he and Yanukovych had lunch to celebrate the recent presidential election. Yanukovych gave Manafort a large jar of black caviar that was worth approximately $30,000 to $40,000. Manafort’s identification of Yanukovych as “the guy who gave you your biggest black caviar jar” is consistent with Kilimnik being in Moscow — where Yanukovych resided — when Kilimnik wrote “I met today with the guy,” and with a December 2016 email in which Kilimnik referred to Yanukovych as “BG,” ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ Manafort replied to Kilimnik’s July 29 email, “Tuesday [August 2] is best ... Tues or weds in NYC.”

Three days later, on July 31, 2016, Kilimnik flew back to Kiey from Moscow, and on that same day, wrote to Manafort that he needed “about 2 hours” for their meeting “because it is a long caviar story to tell.” Kilimnik wrote that he would arrive at JFK on August 2 at 7:30 p.m., and he and Manafort agreed to a late dinner that night. Documentary evidence — including flight, phone, and hotel records, and the timing of text messages exchanged — confirms the dinner took place as planned on August 2.

As to the contents of the meeting itself, the accounts of Manafort and Gates — who arrived late to the dinner — differ in certain respects. But their versions of events, when assessed alongside available documentary evidence and what Kilimnik told business associate Sam Patten, indicate that at least three principal topics were discussed.
...


Second, Manafort briefed Kilimnik on the state of the Trump Campaign and Manafort’s plan to win the election. That briefing encompassed the Campaign’s messaging and its internal polling data. According to Gates, it also included discussion of “battleground” states, which Manafort identified as Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Minnesota. Manafort did not refer explicitly to “battleground” states in his telling of the August 2 discussion, ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■

[spurraider21]

uh huh.

and how did they conclude?

the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.

[RandomGuy]

mueller himself:

the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities

Criminal conspiracy is not "collusion". "not enough evidence to establish" does not equal "exonerated".

One hundred plus known of meetings or exchanges, destroyed evidence, people lying about who and when they met, unavailable witnesses, uncooperative witnesses, and witnesses that lied.

The overall pattern of coverups and sheer number of meetings and inroads made by various Russian government officials paints a pretty solid picture of the kind of "flood the zone" Russian effort.

To think that there was, in fact, no outright coordination, begs belief that this willingness to get information from, all the meetings and contacts, and the provision of information to, was simply innocent.

When one applies the filter of what the limitations and scope of the investigation was, the common meaning of hte word "collusion" is really easy to prove.

[spurraider21]

Criminal conspiracy is not "collusion". "not enough evidence to establish" does not equal "exonerated".

One hundred plus known of meetings or exchanges, destroyed evidence, people lying about who and when they met, unavailable witnesses, uncooperative witnesses, and witnesses that lied.

The overall pattern of coverups and sheer number of meetings and inroads made by various Russian government officials paints a pretty solid picture of the kind of "flood the zone" Russian effort.

To think that there was, in fact, no outright coordination, begs belief that this willingness to get information from, all the meetings and contacts, and the provision of information to, was simply innocent.

When one applies the filter of what the limitations and scope of the investigation was, the common meaning of hte word "collusion" is really easy to prove.
they took much stronger language on obstruction than they did with collusion. that wasn't by accident.

the term "collusion" is legally irrelevant. they said they could make no finding of coordination or conspiring.

[boutons_deux]

"this willingness to get information from, all the meetings and contacts, and the provision of information to, was simply innocent."

the giveaway is all the "forgetting", lying, obstruction, by ALL of them, for 2 years, none of which you do if innocent.

[RandomGuy]

uh huh.

and how did they conclude?

the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.

Uh huh, and what did Mueller say about that:


A statement that the investigation did not establish particular facts does not mean there was no evidence of those facts.



In evaluating whether evidence about collective action of multiple individuals constituted a crime, we applied the framework of conspiracy law, not the concept of “collusion.” In so doing, the Office recognized that the word “collud[e]” was used in communications with the Acting Attorney General confirming certain aspects of the investigation’s scope and that the term has frequently been invoked in public reporting about the investigation. But collusion is not a specific offense or theory of liability found in the United States Code, nor is it a term of art in federal criminal law. For those reasons, the Office’s focus in analyzing questions of joint criminal liability was on conspiracy as defined in federal law. In connection with that analysis, we addressed the factual question whether members of the Trump Campaign “coordinat[ed]” — a term that appears in the appointment order — with Russian election interference activities. Like collusion, “coordination” does not have a settled definition in federal criminal law. We understood coordination to require an agreement — tacit or express — between the Trump Campaign and the Russian government on election interference. That requires more than the two parties taking actions that were informed by or responsive to the other’s actions or interests. We applied the term coordination in that sense when stating in the report that the investigation did not establish that the Trump Campaign coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.



The investigation did not always yield admissible information or testimony, or a complete picture of the activities undertaken by subjects of the investigation. Some individuals invoked their Fifth Amendment right against compelled self-incrimination and were not, in the Office’s judgment, appropriate candidates for grants of immunity. The Office limited its pursuit of other witnesses and information — such as information known to attorneys or individuals claiming to be members of the media — in light of internal Department of Justice policies. See, e.g., Justice Manual §§ 9-13.400, 13.410. Some of the information obtained via court process, moreover, was presumptively covered by legal privilege and was screened from investigators by a filter (or “taint”) team. Even when individuals testified or agreed to be interviewed, they sometimes provided information that was false or incomplete, leading to some of the false-statements charges described above. And the Office faced practical limits on its ability to access relevant evidence as well — numerous witnesses and subjects lived abroad, and documents were held outside the United States.

Further, the Office learned that some of the individuals we interviewed or whose conduct we investigated — including some associated with the Trump Campaign — deleted relevant communications or communicated during the relevant period using applications that feature encryption or that do not provide for long-term retention of data or communications records. In such cases, the Office was not able to corroborate witness statements through comparison to contemporaneous communications or fully question witnesses about statements that appeared inconsistent with other known facts.

Accordingly, while this report embodies factual and legal determinations that the Office believes to be accurate and complete to the greatest extent possible, given these identified gaps, the Office cannot rule out the possibility that the unavailable information would shed additional light on (or cast in a new light) the events described in the report.

The caveats here are pretty substantial, and provide any reasonable person with some additional context to review the context under which Russia had so many contacts with Trumpworld.

[Spurtacular]

It's right there in the quote, derp.

Did you even read it?

SCOTUS cannot review impeachments.

SCOTUS said so.

Unanimously.

lol derp

I did. Which is why I know you're lying. Of course, you talking in the first place is often a tip-off. :lmao

[RandomGuy]

they took much stronger language on obstruction than they did with collusion. that wasn't by accident.

the term "collusion" is legally irrelevant. they said they could make no finding of coordination or conspiring.

Correct. As noted.

TSA though, applies the dictionary definition because he has to, for that reason.


secret or illegal cooperation or conspiracy, especially in order to cheat or deceive others.

Seems like all the meetings and contacts meet the "secret conspiracy to cheat", especially when "cheating" involves being given dirt on your opponent by an entity that should not be doing so, i.e. a foreign government.

I understand, and acknowledge the legal limits here. I don't need to be a judge though, to be able to fill in the holes, especially given the open, obvious, and voluminous nature of the contacts, that took hundreds of pages to describe.

[RandomGuy]

TSA nevermind. RG is doing his own thing... i was going off the conversation started above

As was I. Focused on the obstruction part first because that was a lot easier to show.

[Spurtacular]

TSA (https://www.spurstalk.com/forums/member.php?u=7640) this is where the discussion started tbh

What's your point, Lite?

[RandomGuy]

What's your point, Lite?

IRST FELONY
E. Efforts to fire Mueller
Obstructive act (p. 87): Former White House Counsel Don McGahn is a “credible witness” in providing evidence that Trump indeed attempted to fire Mueller. This “would qualify as an obstructive act” if the firing “would naturally obstruct the investigation and any grand jury proceedings that might flow from the inquiry.”
Nexus (p. 89): “Substantial evidence” indicates that, at this point, Trump was aware that “his conduct was under investigation by a federal prosecutor who could present any evidence of federal crimes to a grand jury.”
Intent (p. 89): “Substantial evidence indicates that the President’s attempts to remove the Special Counsel were linked to the Special Counsel’s oversight of investigations that involved the President’s conduct[.]”

SECOND FELONY
F. Efforts to curtail Mueller
Obstructive act (p. 97): Trump’s effort to force Sessions to confine the investigation to only investigating future election interference “would qualify as an obstructive act if it would naturally obstruct the investigation and any grand jury proceedings that might flow from the inquiry.” “Taken together, the President’s directives indicate that Sessions was being instructed to tell the Special Counsel to end the existing investigation into the President and his campaign[.]”
Nexus (p. 97): At the relevant point, “the existence of a grand jury investigation supervised by the Special Counsel was public knowledge.”
Intent (p. 97): “Substantial evidence” indicates that Trump’s efforts were “intended to prevent further investigative scrutiny of the President’s and his campaign’s conduct.”
THIRD FELONY
I. Order to McGahn to deny Trump’s order to fire Mueller
Obstructive act (p. 118): This effort “would qualify as an obstructive act if it had the natural tendency to constrain McGahn from testifying truthfully or to undermine his credibility as a potential witness[.]” There is “some evidence” that Trump genuinely believed press reports that he had ordered McGahn to fire Mueller were wrong. However, “[o]ther evidence cuts against that understanding of the president’s conduct”—and the special counsel lists a great deal more evidence on this latter point.
Nexus (p. 119): At this point “the Special Counsel’s use of a grand jury had been further confirmed by the return of several indictments.” Mueller’s office had indicated to Trump’s lawyers that it was investigating obstruction, and Trump knew that McGahn had already been interviewed by Mueller on the topic. “That evidence indicates the President’s awareness” that his efforts to fire Mueller were relevant to official proceedings. Trump “likely contemplated the ongoing investigation and any proceedings arising from it” in directing McGahn to create a false record of the earlier interaction.
Intent (p. 120): “Substantial evidence indicates that … the President acted for the purpose of influencing McGahn’s account in order to deflect or prevent further scrutiny” of Trump.

FOURTH FELONY
J. Conduct toward... Manafort
Obstructive act (p. 131): “The President’s actions toward witnesses … would qualify as obstructive if they had the natural tendency to prevent particular witnesses from testifying truthfully, or otherwise would have the probable effect of influencing, delaying, or preventing their testimony to law enforcement.” ...Regarding Manafort, “there is evidence that the President’s actions had the potential” to influence Manafort’s thinking on cooperation, and his public statements “had the potential to influence the trial jury.”
Nexus (p. 132): Trump’s actions toward [Manafort and others] “appear to have been connected to pending or anticipated official proceedings involving each individual.”
Intent (p. 132): “[e]vidence … indicates that the President intended to encourage Manafort not to cooperate with the government”.

[Pavlov]

I did. Which is why I know you're lying.Oh?

"The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present."



What part is the lie?

Where is the part where SCOTUS can review impeachments?

Back up your claim.

[Spurtacular]

Oh?

"The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present."


What part is the lie?

How can you consistently be so stupid?

Go ahead and find the statement where I said House Of Reps does not have the sole power to impeach. You're not fit to do so much debating.

[Spurtacular]

IRST FELONY
E. Efforts to fire Mueller
Obstructive act (p. 87): Former White House Counsel Don McGahn is a “credible witness” in providing evidence that Trump indeed attempted to fire Mueller. This “would qualify as an obstructive act” if the firing “would naturally obstruct the investigation and any grand jury proceedings that might flow from the inquiry.”
Nexus (p. 89): “Substantial evidence” indicates that, at this point, Trump was aware that “his conduct was under investigation by a federal prosecutor who could present any evidence of federal crimes to a grand jury.”
Intent (p. 89): “Substantial evidence indicates that the President’s attempts to remove the Special Counsel were linked to the Special Counsel’s oversight of investigations that involved the President’s conduct[.]”

SECOND FELONY
F. Efforts to curtail Mueller
Obstructive act (p. 97): Trump’s effort to force Sessions to confine the investigation to only investigating future election interference “would qualify as an obstructive act if it would naturally obstruct the investigation and any grand jury proceedings that might flow from the inquiry.” “Taken together, the President’s directives indicate that Sessions was being instructed to tell the Special Counsel to end the existing investigation into the President and his campaign[.]”
Nexus (p. 97): At the relevant point, “the existence of a grand jury investigation supervised by the Special Counsel was public knowledge.”
Intent (p. 97): “Substantial evidence” indicates that Trump’s efforts were “intended to prevent further investigative scrutiny of the President’s and his campaign’s conduct.”
THIRD FELONY
I. Order to McGahn to deny Trump’s order to fire Mueller
Obstructive act (p. 118): This effort “would qualify as an obstructive act if it had the natural tendency to constrain McGahn from testifying truthfully or to undermine his credibility as a potential witness[.]” There is “some evidence” that Trump genuinely believed press reports that he had ordered McGahn to fire Mueller were wrong. However, “[o]ther evidence cuts against that understanding of the president’s conduct”—and the special counsel lists a great deal more evidence on this latter point.
Nexus (p. 119): At this point “the Special Counsel’s use of a grand jury had been further confirmed by the return of several indictments.” Mueller’s office had indicated to Trump’s lawyers that it was investigating obstruction, and Trump knew that McGahn had already been interviewed by Mueller on the topic. “That evidence indicates the President’s awareness” that his efforts to fire Mueller were relevant to official proceedings. Trump “likely contemplated the ongoing investigation and any proceedings arising from it” in directing McGahn to create a false record of the earlier interaction.
Intent (p. 120): “Substantial evidence indicates that … the President acted for the purpose of influencing McGahn’s account in order to deflect or prevent further scrutiny” of Trump.

FOURTH FELONY
J. Conduct toward... Manafort
Obstructive act (p. 131): “The President’s actions toward witnesses … would qualify as obstructive if they had the natural tendency to prevent particular witnesses from testifying truthfully, or otherwise would have the probable effect of influencing, delaying, or preventing their testimony to law enforcement.” ...Regarding Manafort, “there is evidence that the President’s actions had the potential” to influence Manafort’s thinking on cooperation, and his public statements “had the potential to influence the trial jury.”
Nexus (p. 132): Trump’s actions toward [Manafort and others] “appear to have been connected to pending or anticipated official proceedings involving each individual.”
Intent (p. 132): “[e]vidence … indicates that the President intended to encourage Manafort not to cooperate with the government”.

Kidnapper spam.

[Pavlov]

How can you consistently be so stupid?

Go ahead and find the statement where I said House Of Reps does not have the sole power to impeach. You're not fit to do so much debating.Where is the part where SCOTUS can review impeachments?

Back up your claim.

It's been a day.

[Spurtacular]

Where is the part where SCOTUS can review impeachments?

Back up your claim.

It's been a day.

It's in the job description, dip shit.

SC can review the Constitutionality of anything.

[Pavlov]

It's in the job description, dip shit.
Let's see that job description.

I cited a case where they explicitly said they could not review any impeachment process.

Period.

Unanimously.

Post the job description where they can review impeachments.

[DarrinS]

At the end of the day, all of this is political bs. I understand that dems hate him, so shit or get off the pot and bring on impeachment proceedings. Do it.

[Pavlov]

At the end of the day, all of this is political bs. I understand that dems hate him, so shit or get off the pot and bring on impeachment proceedings. Do it.aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand Darrin changes det subject.

[spurraider21]

What's your point, Lite?
there's a discussion going on. you are free to read through it and pick up the context.

[Pavlov]

there's a discussion going on. you are free to read through it and pick up the context.:lol

[DarrinS]

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand Darrin changes det subject.

Needs more aaaaaaaa's, tbh.

[Pavlov]

Needs more aaaaaaaa's, tbh.As long as you don't have to defend or explain anything you have ever said here, it's fine with you.

[DarrinS]

As long as you don't have to defend or explain anything you have ever said here, it's fine with you.

Why did Mueller punt?

[RandomGuy]

At the end of the day, all of this is political bs. I understand that dems hate him, so shit or get off the pot and bring on impeachment proceedings. Do it.

Not going to happen until closer to the election. Be great if he gets removed after it is too late to replace him on the ballots in the red states. This is going to get strung out for as much damage to your piece of shit traitor party as possible. Honestly having this idiot still on the ballot in November of 2020 would be awesome too. Win for Democrats either way.

Plus we get to comb through his finances for all his other felonies, you brainwashed fucktard.

Your masters will need to give you a lot more more excuses to parrot in forums like this, asshole. Be ready to start learning them.

[RandomGuy]

Why did Mueller punt?

Read the fucking report, cuntwaffle.

[spurraider21]

Why did Mueller punt?
it was explained very thoroughly in his report, i commented on in quite a bit in this thread, and he re-iterated some of the reasoning at his recent presser

for fucks sake

[DarrinS]

Not going to happen until closer to the election. Be great if he gets removed after it is too late to replace him on the ballots in the red states. This is going to get strung out for as much damage to your piece of shit traitor party as possible. Honestly having this idiot still on the ballot in November of 2020 would be awesome too. Win for Democrats either way.

Plus we get to comb through his finances for all his other felonies, you brainwashed fucktard.

Your masters will need to give you a lot more more excuses to parrot in forums like this, asshole. Be ready to start learning them.


^TDS patient zero

[RandomGuy]

^TDS patient zero

More like DDS. Sorry.

TDS is what happens when lazy morons like you take the word of a con man, instead of, you know, reading something for themselves.

Have you read the Mueller report yet, idiot?

[RandomGuy]

As long as you don't have to defend or explain anything you have ever said here, it's fine with you.

Darrin gave up on that a long time ago. If it takes longer than a few seconds to type out a one liner, that is too much effort. He is lazier than Spurtacular, and that is saying a lot.

[DarrinS]

Darrin gave up on that a long time ago. If it takes longer than a few seconds to type out a one liner, that is too much effort. He is lazier than Spurtacular, and that is saying a lot.

:cry :depressed

[Pavlov]

Why did Mueller punt?You still don't know the reasoning after all this time?

After it was explained in the report?

And at the press conference?

Why are you even posting here if you're that ignorant, Darrin?

This is derp level shit.

[spurraider21]

You still don't know the reasoning after all this time?

After it was explained in the report?

And at the press conference?

Why are you even posting here if you're that ignorant, Darrin?

This is derp level shit.
at least derp heard about it, tbh

[Pavlov]

at least derp heard about it, tbh:lmao

[RandomGuy]

:cry :depressed

Have you read the Mueller report yet, idiot?

[DarrinS]

Why did Mueller punt?

https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/05/robert-mueller-investigation-was-always-impeachment-probe/

[ChumpDumper]

https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/05/robert-mueller-investigation-was-always-impeachment-probe/Oh look, Darin shits himself again.

Can you ever explain yourself?

[Spurs Homer]

they took very different tones with respect to collusion and obstruction.

if somebody investigated me for two years and concluded that their investigation did not identify any evidence of any pedophlic activity or intent, then yeah i'd be pretty satisfied with that.

thats what mueller said about collusion.

That is not accurate -

What Mueller said in your analogy is this;

you were seen with several children in videos and pics and several witnesses corroborated seeing you offering kids candy and money to lure them into your home -

but 18 sets of parents declined to press charges because the mafia threatened them with bodily harm if they pressed charges -

so therefore -

I will not be indicting you on child sex assault charges.

[spurraider21]

That is not accurate -

What Mueller said in your analogy is this;

you were seen with several children in videos and pics and several witnesses corroborated seeing you offering kids candy and money to lure them into your home -

but 18 sets of parents declined to press charges because the mafia threatened them with bodily harm if they pressed charges -

so therefore -

I will not be indicting you on child sex assault charges.


mueller himself:

the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities

[Pavlov]

Those still holding out for some kind of collusion action can probably still kick the can down the road Huber/Durham style.

[DarrinS]

Those still holding out for some kind of collusion action can probably still kick the can down the road Huber/Durham style.

Collusion is dead. Huber, Durham, Horowitz investigations live on.

[Pavlov]

Collusion is dead. Huber, Durham, Horowitz investigations live on.:lol Barr just said Huber was standing around holding his dick and is now dead.

Barr said Durham is just standing around holding his dick now.

Horowitz is the only one doing anything, and that will never amount to much.

Tell me again how your coup conspiracy works, Darrin.

[Spurs Homer]

Spurraider - you keep peddling that "did not establish" line - but that is a disservice


Rosenstein limited Mueller to

1) russia attacking the usa

2) trump campaign - "coordinating" with the russians -

which is a false choice because "coordination" is NOT a legal term -

So Muellers hands were tied and even when he found over 140 russian/trump team contacts - he was left with

"Can I charge coordination?" NO

"can I charge - CONSPIRACY?"

NO

Because


Rosenstein implicitly tied his hands to "coordination"

So Mueller had to do mental gymnastics to try and tie "coordination" into a

CRIME OF CONSPIRACY

which his mandate DID NOT SPECIFICALLY ALLOW HIM TO DO!

Stop peddling misinformation and giving the traitors an out.

[DarrinS]

:lol Barr just said Huber was standing around holding his dick and is now dead.

Barr said Durham is just standing around holding his dick now.

Horowitz is the only one doing anything, and that will never amount to much.

Tell me again how your coup conspiracy works, Darrin.

He said that? Please link epic video

[spurraider21]

Spurraider - you keep peddling that "did not establish" line - but that is a disservice


Rosenstein limited Mueller to

1) russia attacking the usa

2) trump campaign - "coordinating" with the russians -

which is a false choice because "coordination" is NOT a legal term -

So Muellers hands were tied and even when he found over 140 russian/trump team contacts - he was left with

"Can I charge coordination?" NO

"can I charge - CONSPIRACY?"

NO

Because


Rosenstein implicitly tied his hands to "coordination"

So Mueller had to do mental gymnastics to try and tie "coordination" into a

CRIME OF CONSPIRACY

which his mandate DID NOT SPECIFICALLY ALLOW HIM TO DO!

Stop peddling misinformation and giving the traitors an out.
take it up with mueller. i'm going by the facts we know. you're speculating and filling the gaps with your imagination.

[Pavlov]

He said that? Please link epic video
There is a video with at the link, if you want to be a twat about it.
WILLIAM BARR: Right, so Huber had originally been asked to take a look at the FISA applications and the electronic surveillance but then he stood back and put that on hold while the Office of Inspector General was conducting its review, which would've been normal for the department. And he was essentially on standby in case Mr. Horowitz referred a matter to him to be handled criminally. So he has not been active on this front in recent months and so Durham is taking over that role. The other issues he's been working on relate to Hillary Clinton. Those are winding down and hopefully we'll be in a position to bring those to fruition.

JAN CRAWFORD: So he won't be involved in this really at all then?

WILLIAM BARR: No.

JAN CRAWFORD: This is his role, it's done?

WILLIAM BARR: Right.

JAN CRAWFORD: And now Durham is going to pick up--

WILL BARR: Yes, right.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/william-barr-interview-full-transcript-cbs-this-morning-jan-crawford-exclusive-2019-05-31/

Sorry, Darrin -- you didn't say how your coup conspiracy works.

Please post it.

[Spurs Homer]

take it up with mueller. i'm going by the facts we know. you're speculating and filling the gaps with your imagination.

Not exactly.

It is written in the report.

Mueller explains it - and even goes as far as to include the TWO memos that Rosenstein issued to him


AFTER

the mandate had been given - where Rosenstein actually NARROWED THE MANDATE FURTHER!!!

So Mueller is spelling it out as best as he can under his limited mandate.

This is why Mueller will be forced to testify -

Mueller has to be put under oath - so he can reveal the fuckery that Rosenstein and Barr forced him to work under.

Mueller will not voluntarily give up the goods - for his own reasons - but he will if he is put under the gun and either perjure himself, refuse to answer -

or hopefully

relent under pressure and complete his mission.

[spurraider21]

yup. you're filling in gaps with your imagination

[TSA]

Not exactly.

It is written in the report.

Mueller explains it - and even goes as far as to include the TWO memos that Rosenstein issued to him


AFTER

the mandate had been given - where Rosenstein actually NARROWED THE MANDATE FURTHER!!!

So Mueller is spelling it out as best as he can under his limited mandate.

This is why Mueller will be forced to testify -

Mueller has to be put under oath - so he can reveal the fuckery that Rosenstein and Barr forced him to work under.

Mueller will not voluntarily give up the goods - for his own reasons - but he will if he is put under the gun and either perjure himself, refuse to answer -

or hopefully

relent under pressure and complete his mission.

Mueller wasn’t limited in the least bit, quite the opposite.

“any matters that arose or may arise directly from that investigation”

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4465582-Rosenstein-Memo-on-scope-of-Mueller-investigation.html

:lol NARROWED THE MANDATE FURTHER

[TSA]

Collusion is dead. Huber, Durham, Horowitz investigations live on.

1134578859825868801

[spurraider21]

1134578859825868801
when did he suggest that?

has he had another interview since the CBS one from this morning?

[Pavlov]

1134578859825868801:lmao "suggested"

[koriwhat]

you're right.

trump tower meeting wasn't about stolen emails. my bad there.

More like adoption... a big ploy to entrap and get manufactured "evidence".

[Spurtacular]

there's a discussion going on. you are free to read through it and pick up the context.

You quoted me, Lite. But you can hold to your girly secret if it suits you.

[Spurtacular]

Let's see that job description.


Blake level stuff, dude.

[Winehole23]

You quoted me, Lite. But you can hold to your girly secret if it suits you.I could tell it was meant as a putdown, but I don't get it.

Can someone explain it to me?

[Spurs Homer]

Mueller wasn’t limited in the least bit, quite the opposite.

“any matters that arose or may arise directly from that investigation”

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4465582-Rosenstein-Memo-on-scope-of-Mueller-investigation.html

:lol NARROWED THE MANDATE FURTHER


You never read the Mueller report - gtfo of here with your bullshit.

[Spurs Homer]

yup. you're filling in gaps with your imagination

You didn't read the report -

or you missed it.

It is in there.

[spurraider21]

You didn't read the report -

or you missed it.

It is in there.
i read the report. and within it, the conclusions.

[TSA]

You never read the Mueller report - gtfo of here with your bullshit.

You never read the scope memos included in the Mueller report, if you had your stupid ass wouldn’t keep claiming Mueller was limited and his mandate narrowed.

Explain how the ability to investigate any matters arising from the Russia investigation is somehow a limiting factor.

[Winehole23]

You never read the scope memos included in the Mueller reportover/under?

ten years?

how long does TSA continue to say?

[Pavlov]

Blake level stuff, dude.derp, you said it was their job description.

You've been whining all along that SCOTUS can review impeachments when they explicitly and unanimously ruled they can't review any impeachments.

You have to post a law or decision showing they can review impeachments.

Let's see them.

[Spurtacular]

You've been whining all along that SCOTUS can review impeachments when they explicitly and unanimously ruled they can't review any impeachments.


Psychopav truth.

[Pavlov]

Psychopav truth.OK, show where it says they can, derp.

[Pavlov]

https://media.giphy.com/media/pz7X6ivsb8KaEO9D4F/giphy.gif

[Spurtacular]

https://media.giphy.com/media/pz7X6ivsb8KaEO9D4F/giphy.gif

[RandomGuy]

Darrin gave up on that a long time ago. If it takes longer than a few seconds to type out a one liner, that is too much effort.


:cry :depressed

You never fail to fail.

[boutons_deux]

Reflections on the President’s Delegation of Declassification Authority to the Attorney General



"These days, many Americans fear, the attorney general has been given a different role:

facilitating the political declassification of intelligence community materials the president wishes to make public

to retaliate against the intelligence leadership for investigating him.

Whereas once the public needed the attorney general to protect it from abuses by the intelligence agencies,

today some believe that the intelligence agencies need protection from the attorney general."

https://www.lawfareblog.com/reflections-presidents-delegation-declassification-authority-attorney-general#

[RandomGuy]

You never read the scope memos included in the Mueller report, if you had your stupid ass wouldn’t keep claiming Mueller was limited and his mandate narrowed.

Explain how the ability to investigate any matters arising from the Russia investigation is somehow a limiting factor.

Explain how Trump isn't guilty of multiple felonies. All three elements of felony obstruction are right there, multiple times.

FIRST FELONY
E. Efforts to fire Mueller
Obstructive act (p. 87): Former White House Counsel Don McGahn is a “credible witness” in providing evidence that Trump indeed attempted to fire Mueller. This “would qualify as an obstructive act” if the firing “would naturally obstruct the investigation and any grand jury proceedings that might flow from the inquiry.”
Nexus (p. 89): “Substantial evidence” indicates that, at this point, Trump was aware that “his conduct was under investigation by a federal prosecutor who could present any evidence of federal crimes to a grand jury.”
Intent (p. 89): “Substantial evidence indicates that the President’s attempts to remove the Special Counsel were linked to the Special Counsel’s oversight of investigations that involved the President’s conduct[.]”

SECOND FELONY
F. Efforts to curtail Mueller
Obstructive act (p. 97): Trump’s effort to force Sessions to confine the investigation to only investigating future election interference “would qualify as an obstructive act if it would naturally obstruct the investigation and any grand jury proceedings that might flow from the inquiry.” “Taken together, the President’s directives indicate that Sessions was being instructed to tell the Special Counsel to end the existing investigation into the President and his campaign[.]”
Nexus (p. 97): At the relevant point, “the existence of a grand jury investigation supervised by the Special Counsel was public knowledge.”
Intent (p. 97): “Substantial evidence” indicates that Trump’s efforts were “intended to prevent further investigative scrutiny of the President’s and his campaign’s conduct.”
THIRD FELONY
I. Order to McGahn to deny Trump’s order to fire Mueller
Obstructive act (p. 118): This effort “would qualify as an obstructive act if it had the natural tendency to constrain McGahn from testifying truthfully or to undermine his credibility as a potential witness[.]” There is “some evidence” that Trump genuinely believed press reports that he had ordered McGahn to fire Mueller were wrong. However, “[o]ther evidence cuts against that understanding of the president’s conduct”—and the special counsel lists a great deal more evidence on this latter point.
Nexus (p. 119): At this point “the Special Counsel’s use of a grand jury had been further confirmed by the return of several indictments.” Mueller’s office had indicated to Trump’s lawyers that it was investigating obstruction, and Trump knew that McGahn had already been interviewed by Mueller on the topic. “That evidence indicates the President’s awareness” that his efforts to fire Mueller were relevant to official proceedings. Trump “likely contemplated the ongoing investigation and any proceedings arising from it” in directing McGahn to create a false record of the earlier interaction.
Intent (p. 120): “Substantial evidence indicates that … the President acted for the purpose of influencing McGahn’s account in order to deflect or prevent further scrutiny” of Trump.

FOURTH FELONY
J. Conduct toward... Manafort
Obstructive act (p. 131): “The President’s actions toward witnesses … would qualify as obstructive if they had the natural tendency to prevent particular witnesses from testifying truthfully, or otherwise would have the probable effect of influencing, delaying, or preventing their testimony to law enforcement.” ...Regarding Manafort, “there is evidence that the President’s actions had the potential” to influence Manafort’s thinking on cooperation, and his public statements “had the potential to influence the trial jury.”
Nexus (p. 132): Trump’s actions toward [Manafort and others] “appear to have been connected to pending or anticipated official proceedings involving each individual.”

Are multiple counts of obstruction of justice impeachable?

[TSA]

Explain how Trump isn't guilty of multiple felonies. All three elements of felony obstruction are right there, multiple times.

FIRST FELONY
E. Efforts to fire Mueller
Obstructive act (p. 87): Former White House Counsel Don McGahn is a “credible witness” in providing evidence that Trump indeed attempted to fire Mueller. This “would qualify as an obstructive act” if the firing “would naturally obstruct the investigation and any grand jury proceedings that might flow from the inquiry.”
Nexus (p. 89): “Substantial evidence” indicates that, at this point, Trump was aware that “his conduct was under investigation by a federal prosecutor who could present any evidence of federal crimes to a grand jury.”
Intent (p. 89): “Substantial evidence indicates that the President’s attempts to remove the Special Counsel were linked to the Special Counsel’s oversight of investigations that involved the President’s conduct[.]”

SECOND FELONY
F. Efforts to curtail Mueller
Obstructive act (p. 97): Trump’s effort to force Sessions to confine the investigation to only investigating future election interference “would qualify as an obstructive act if it would naturally obstruct the investigation and any grand jury proceedings that might flow from the inquiry.” “Taken together, the President’s directives indicate that Sessions was being instructed to tell the Special Counsel to end the existing investigation into the President and his campaign[.]”
Nexus (p. 97): At the relevant point, “the existence of a grand jury investigation supervised by the Special Counsel was public knowledge.”
Intent (p. 97): “Substantial evidence” indicates that Trump’s efforts were “intended to prevent further investigative scrutiny of the President’s and his campaign’s conduct.”
THIRD FELONY
I. Order to McGahn to deny Trump’s order to fire Mueller
Obstructive act (p. 118): This effort “would qualify as an obstructive act if it had the natural tendency to constrain McGahn from testifying truthfully or to undermine his credibility as a potential witness[.]” There is “some evidence” that Trump genuinely believed press reports that he had ordered McGahn to fire Mueller were wrong. However, “[o]ther evidence cuts against that understanding of the president’s conduct”—and the special counsel lists a great deal more evidence on this latter point.
Nexus (p. 119): At this point “the Special Counsel’s use of a grand jury had been further confirmed by the return of several indictments.” Mueller’s office had indicated to Trump’s lawyers that it was investigating obstruction, and Trump knew that McGahn had already been interviewed by Mueller on the topic. “That evidence indicates the President’s awareness” that his efforts to fire Mueller were relevant to official proceedings. Trump “likely contemplated the ongoing investigation and any proceedings arising from it” in directing McGahn to create a false record of the earlier interaction.
Intent (p. 120): “Substantial evidence indicates that … the President acted for the purpose of influencing McGahn’s account in order to deflect or prevent further scrutiny” of Trump.

FOURTH FELONY
J. Conduct toward... Manafort
Obstructive act (p. 131): “The President’s actions toward witnesses … would qualify as obstructive if they had the natural tendency to prevent particular witnesses from testifying truthfully, or otherwise would have the probable effect of influencing, delaying, or preventing their testimony to law enforcement.” ...Regarding Manafort, “there is evidence that the President’s actions had the potential” to influence Manafort’s thinking on cooperation, and his public statements “had the potential to influence the trial jury.”
Nexus (p. 132): Trump’s actions toward [Manafort and others] “appear to have been connected to pending or anticipated official proceedings involving each individual.”

Are multiple counts of obstruction of justice impeachable?

:lol Obstructing an investigation based on manufactured fake evidence

Good luck with that :bobo

[TSA]

1134628064946663424

Excellent read on Barr’s interview.

[Pavlov]

1134628064946663424

Excellent read on Barr’s interview.I'm sure it's just a bunch of wishcasting like you always post.

[boutons_deux]

Everybody's innocent, nothing but total set ups and frame jobs.

Barr was chosen because he was apolitical? :lol

[Spurs Homer]

i read the report. and within it, the conclusions.

[boutons_deux]

Malcolm Nance Says It’s Time To Stop Calling William Barr The Attorney General

Nance said that since he has taken his position at the Justice Department,

Barr has been nothing but a lap dog for Trump.

“This man is not the Attorney General of the United States,” Nance said.

“This is Donald Trump’s political commissar. … It’s a shame.”

https://www.politicususa.com/2019/06/01/malcolm-nance-says-its-time-to-stop-calling-william-barr-the-attorney-general.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+politicususa%2FfJAl+%28Politi cus+USA+%29 (https://www.politicususa.com/2019/06/01/malcolm-nance-says-its-time-to-stop-calling-william-barr-the-attorney-general.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+politicususa%2FfJAl+%28Politi cus+USA+%29)

[Chris]

https://twitter.com/DonaldJTrumpJr/status/1134876219835637768

[Pavlov]

https://twitter.com/DonaldJTrumpJr/status/1134876219835637768:lmao Huber

[Chris]

https://twitter.com/SaraCarterDC/status/1134909179020357632

[boutons_deux]

Julie Annie attacking Mueller

Rudy Giuliani threatens $17 million legal action against Robert Mueller during Fox News interview

https://www.rawstory.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Fox-News.jpg

Giuliani was incensed that Mueller did not come to a prosecutorial conclusion on Trump’s obstruction of justice.

“It was a dereliction of duty,” Giuliani claimed.

“Why do you appoint an independent counsel, a special counsel?

Theoretically there’s some kind of conflict, they are supposed to make a decision,”

“I think I might bring a qui tam action to get that money back for the government,”

https://www.rawstory.com/2019/06/rudy-giuliani-threatens-17-million-legal-action-against-robert-mueller-during-fox-news-interview/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheRawStory+%28The+Raw+Story% 29 (https://www.rawstory.com/2019/06/rudy-giuliani-threatens-17-million-legal-action-against-robert-mueller-during-fox-news-interview/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheRawStory+%28The+Raw+Story% 29)

[Spurs Homer]

Julie Annie attacking Mueller

Rudy Giuliani threatens $17 million legal action against Robert Mueller during Fox News interview

https://www.rawstory.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Fox-News.jpg

Giuliani was incensed that Mueller did not come to a prosecutorial conclusion on Trump’s obstruction of justice.

“It was a dereliction of duty,” Giuliani claimed.

“Why do you appoint an independent counsel, a special counsel?

Theoretically there’s some kind of conflict, they are supposed to make a decision,”

“I think I might bring a qui tam action to get that money back for the government,”

https://www.rawstory.com/2019/06/rudy-giuliani-threatens-17-million-legal-action-against-robert-mueller-during-fox-news-interview/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheRawStory+%28The+Raw+Story% 29 (https://www.rawstory.com/2019/06/rudy-giuliani-threatens-17-million-legal-action-against-robert-mueller-during-fox-news-interview/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheRawStory+%28The+Raw+Story% 29)





It's never too late - I am sure that Mueller can humor the idiots -

Go ahead and indict the criminal president - if they continue begging for it!

[ducks]

https://scontent-lax3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/fr/cp0/e15/q65/61477650_2297482560300608_8900528081177935872_n.jp g?_nc_cat=108&efg=eyJpIjoidCJ9&_nc_ht=scontent-lax3-1.xx&oh=58419e480098f6f003d5765c41582e45&oe=5D8A2B56

[spurraider21]

lol if they didnt want a special counsel all trump had to do was not fire comey because of the russia thing.

and lol bongino being just as gullible as TSA, parroting undercover huber's garbage reading comprehension

[pgardn]

Never in any of this has our president ever lied or been associated with criminals.
This is all a big blue team hoax to discredit a great orange man.

So where are we on the deep state now investigating Russian interference?
Where does the tangerine stand on this at this moment in time?

[Winehole23]

DOJ spurns a court order. Contempt for the law and institutions of the law are DJT hallmarks.

[pgardn]

DOJ spurns a court order. Contempt for the law and institutions of the law are DJT hallmarks.

This particular jabba the hut Republican has aligned himself with Trump so closely because he believes in the dominance of the executive branch.
When the red team goes down, they go down hard. Its gonna be very difficult for the rats to leave a rapidly sinking ship. And the ship will sink.
The ship could sink so rapidly I got a bit of fear for boutons-like blue team members basically performing the same lying lawlessness when institutions are weakened. "Voting does not work. The corporations of the world are the enemy, anarchy now"

This current group must be defeated in a manner involving truth and respect for the law.
Otherwise we take a hard exit from this crappy regime. Imo... Especially if Trump has another term. We take a huge risk of a historically unfair backlash.

[TSA]

lol if they didnt want a special counsel all trump had to do was not fire comey because of the russia thing.

and lol bongino being just as gullible as TSA, parroting undercover huber's garbage reading comprehension

NYT and HuffPo curious as well

1134571801185591297

[TSA]

DOJ spurns a court order. Contempt for the law and institutions of the law are DJT hallmarks.

Are you talking about the lawyer from Mueller’s team spurning a court order?

[Winehole23]

Who supervises Mueller?

It's Bob Barr's DOJ, not Mueller's.

[Winehole23]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/justice-department-fails-to-comply-with-court-order-to-release-transcripts-of-michael-flynns-conversations-with-russian-ambassador/2019/05/31/9b4a6754-83b8-11e9-95a9-e2c830afe24f_story.html

[spurraider21]

NYT and HuffPo curious as well

1134571801185591297
they cut out a lot of uhm, urr, type stuff. as long as you dont change the substance of the sentences, its a very normal practice. the supreme court itself does it in its decisions.

he left out "for the country" but included "for national security" so its not misleading or changing the meaning of the sentence.

its standard practice and any claims that the quotes were misleading/misrepresentative display poor reading comprehension

[pgardn]

remember what we’ve always said about the President and his feelings toward Flynn and, that still remains.”

From WP

so what are Trump's feelings about Flynn?
He lied and received money thru his political position.
A soldier did this... a true public servant. A patriot....

This is not how I thought things worked.

[Spurs Homer]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/justice-department-fails-to-comply-with-court-order-to-release-transcripts-of-michael-flynns-conversations-with-russian-ambassador/2019/05/31/9b4a6754-83b8-11e9-95a9-e2c830afe24f_story.html

Barr does not want the public to hear what Flynn said - that caused the Judge to accuse him of treason -

and selling out his country.

[Spurs Homer]

"Republicans for the Rule of Law" (oxymoron much?)

Ran this ad/video on FOX news - embarrassing the fuck out of Graham/Rubio/McCarthy/et al - and making their case that the GOP is not putting country before party - great two minute video;

https://twitter.com/ForTheRuleOfLaw/status/1134140551001980928

[DMC]

What has changed since .. oh.. 2 years ago.. something that actually matters.

(jeopardy theme here)

[boutons_deux]

Dear Robert Mueller: Your report can’t speak for itself

Mr. Mueller, your job is not done yet. In fact, it’s a long way from done. It’s honorable of you to act as if you are part of a process that’s on the level.

But there is nothing by-the-book

in how President Trump and Attorney General William P. Barr have responded to your findings

about Russian interference in the 2016 election or your evidence about Trump’s obstruction of justice.

I’m sorry, Mr. Mueller.

“All but said” is not good enough. Do you say it, or do you not?

You are dealing here with

a president happy to tear the law and the truth — and, for that matter, you — to pieces.

Do you feel no responsibility to set the record straight when Trump distorts it day after day?

You claim that, under the rules, it would have been wrong for you to say Trump broke the law.

But that’s not what your boss, the attorney general, says.

“I personally felt he could’ve reached a decision,” Barr

he could’ve reached a decision as to whether it was criminal activity. But he had his reasons for not doing it.”

The public has a right to know what’s going on here.

you can make up for that by going before Congress and doing what comes naturally to you:

You can tell the truth.

You say you want your written work to “speak for itself.”

But a document cannot respond to Barr’s distortions and Trump’s lies.

Only you can speak for it, and, yes, explain it.

Rep. Mikie Sherrill (D-N.J.), a former federal prosecutor

, she wants to learn more before she decides because “you’re always on your strongest footing when you have all the information you can have.”

But she is surprised that you think a written account is enough.

“As a federal prosecutor, I never had an investigator deliver a report and say, ‘I’m not going to further discuss this,’ ” she told me.

“He has to come before Congress and further discuss his report.”

“I wish he would answer questions, that he wouldn’t hint at what we should do but spell it out,” McGovern said in an interview.

“He speaks in ways that are open to interpretation. Sometimes, he’s like a Ouija board.” :lol

Pelosi ... ,”Congress and the country really do have a right to know more.

“While he may have thought these were the priority points to make to the public,” she said, rather diplomatically,

“there may be questions relating to these facts that members of Congress would have.”

you made it inevitable that politics would overwhelm the substance of your probe.

You opened the way for Trump and Barr to try to bury the very issues you want the public and Congress to consider.

you have to raise your voice and undo the lies.

This is a moment when, quite literally, truth and justice demand that you get out of your comfort zone.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/dear-robert-mueller-your-report-cant-speak-for-itself/2019/06/02/02dc1c9a-8491-11e9-933d-7501070ee669_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.dc21b77ff418 (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/dear-robert-mueller-your-report-cant-speak-for-itself/2019/06/02/02dc1c9a-8491-11e9-933d-7501070ee669_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.dc21b77ff418)

[DMC]

I said "I'll just click on the post, so what it's ignored... but I bet it's just an article and a link"

Click

Article and a link

Boutonbot.exe

[TSA]

Barr does not want the public to hear what Flynn said - that caused the Judge to accuse him of treason -

and selling out his country.



poor fella doesn’t know it had nothing to do with Barr and was a Mueller team lawyer who spurned the court order :rollin

[Spurs Homer]

poor fella doesn’t know it had nothing to do with Barr and was a Mueller team lawyer who spurned the court order :rollin

It is the Justice dept

Barr is the fuckin corrupt traitor boss of the justice dept.

Idiot.

[UnWantedTheory]

poor fella doesn’t know it had nothing to do with Barr and was a Mueller team lawyer who spurned the court order :rollin
Barr heads the DOJ, so yeah, it has everything to do with him.

[Chris]

Barr is your daddy

[boutons_deux]

Bill Barr’s ‘suspicious’ decision to ignore a federal judge’s order has put him in major jeopardy: legal scholars

a conservative columnist for the Washington Posthighlighted the fact that Attorney Bill Barr’s refusal to turn over transcripts of phone calls between for Donald Trump’s national security advisor Michael Flynn and the Russians is not only suspicious — but

puts Barr on the spot with the judge for refusing (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/06/02/if-administration-defied-court-order-all-bets-are-off/?utm_term=.7f5aa526ac3f).

According to Jennifer Rubin, legal scholar Laurence Tribe said Barr may have created a major headache for himself by defying a court order.

Mimi Rocah agreed and said the refusal likely raised questions Barr may not want to answer.

“Normally when prosecutors don’t want to make something public for national security reasons, etc.,

they file a document under seal with the judge explaining that reasoning and requesting relief from the presumption that things should be made public,”

“The House should, as a distinct part of its pre-impeachment fact-finding, hold ‘Hearings on the Defiance of “The committee and the House don’t need Robert S. Mueller III or any other Trump witness to proceed.

The result could be impeachment hearings against Trump or against Barr,” she continued.

“If allowed to continue this conduct, the Trump administration will do permanent and serious damage to the Constitution.

For this alone, impeachment and removal may be required.

”Court Orders and Refusal to Produce Mandated Production of Witness and Documents and Subpoenas’.”

https://www.rawstory.com/2019/06/bill-barrs-suspicious-decision-to-ignore-a-federal-judges-order-has-put-him-in-major-jeopardy-legal-scholars/?utm_source=&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=279&recip_id=298460&list_id=1 (https://www.rawstory.com/2019/06/bill-barrs-suspicious-decision-to-ignore-a-federal-judges-order-has-put-him-in-major-jeopardy-legal-scholars/?utm_source=&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=279&recip_id=298460&list_id=1)

[Winehole23]

Didn't your hear TSA? That's all Mueller's fault.

[boutons_deux]

Didn't your hear TSA? That's all Mueller's fault.

Whine Hole, you got it all wrong. It was all Obama's fault, with assist from Hillary

[Spurs Homer]

Whine Hole, you got it all wrong. It was all Obama's fault, with assist from Hillary


No - silly -

The judge - who - let Manafort off with a slap on the wrist and some encouraging comments -

is now


DEEEEEP STATE!!!!!

and he is just the same as Comey/Strock/Page!!!!

All of them just jealous of the historic 2016 election!!!!

[boutons_deux]

House to begin Mueller hearings on June 10

https://www.rawstory.com/2019/06/house-to-begin-mueller-hearings-on-june-10/?utm_source=&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=281 (https://www.rawstory.com/2019/06/house-to-begin-mueller-hearings-on-june-10/?utm_source=&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=281)

[RandomGuy]

:lol Obstructing an investigation based on manufactured fake evidence

Good luck with that :bobo

Explain how Trump isn't guilty of multiple felonies. All three elements of felony obstruction are right there, multiple times. Doesn't matter what the underlying investigation was about.

FIRST FELONY
E. Efforts to fire Mueller
Obstructive act (p. 87): Former White House Counsel Don McGahn is a “credible witness” in providing evidence that Trump indeed attempted to fire Mueller. This “would qualify as an obstructive act” if the firing “would naturally obstruct the investigation and any grand jury proceedings that might flow from the inquiry.”
Nexus (p. 89): “Substantial evidence” indicates that, at this point, Trump was aware that “his conduct was under investigation by a federal prosecutor who could present any evidence of federal crimes to a grand jury.”
Intent (p. 89): “Substantial evidence indicates that the President’s attempts to remove the Special Counsel were linked to the Special Counsel’s oversight of investigations that involved the President’s conduct[.]”

SECOND FELONY
F. Efforts to curtail Mueller
Obstructive act (p. 97): Trump’s effort to force Sessions to confine the investigation to only investigating future election interference “would qualify as an obstructive act if it would naturally obstruct the investigation and any grand jury proceedings that might flow from the inquiry.” “Taken together, the President’s directives indicate that Sessions was being instructed to tell the Special Counsel to end the existing investigation into the President and his campaign[.]”
Nexus (p. 97): At the relevant point, “the existence of a grand jury investigation supervised by the Special Counsel was public knowledge.”
Intent (p. 97): “Substantial evidence” indicates that Trump’s efforts were “intended to prevent further investigative scrutiny of the President’s and his campaign’s conduct.”
THIRD FELONY
I. Order to McGahn to deny Trump’s order to fire Mueller
Obstructive act (p. 118): This effort “would qualify as an obstructive act if it had the natural tendency to constrain McGahn from testifying truthfully or to undermine his credibility as a potential witness[.]” There is “some evidence” that Trump genuinely believed press reports that he had ordered McGahn to fire Mueller were wrong. However, “[o]ther evidence cuts against that understanding of the president’s conduct”—and the special counsel lists a great deal more evidence on this latter point.
Nexus (p. 119): At this point “the Special Counsel’s use of a grand jury had been further confirmed by the return of several indictments.” Mueller’s office had indicated to Trump’s lawyers that it was investigating obstruction, and Trump knew that McGahn had already been interviewed by Mueller on the topic. “That evidence indicates the President’s awareness” that his efforts to fire Mueller were relevant to official proceedings. Trump “likely contemplated the ongoing investigation and any proceedings arising from it” in directing McGahn to create a false record of the earlier interaction.
Intent (p. 120): “Substantial evidence indicates that … the President acted for the purpose of influencing McGahn’s account in order to deflect or prevent further scrutiny” of Trump.

FOURTH FELONY
J. Conduct toward... Manafort
Obstructive act (p. 131): “The President’s actions toward witnesses … would qualify as obstructive if they had the natural tendency to prevent particular witnesses from testifying truthfully, or otherwise would have the probable effect of influencing, delaying, or preventing their testimony to law enforcement.” ...Regarding Manafort, “there is evidence that the President’s actions had the potential” to influence Manafort’s thinking on cooperation, and his public statements “had the potential to influence the trial jury.”
Nexus (p. 132): Trump’s actions toward [Manafort and others] “appear to have been connected to pending or anticipated official proceedings involving each individual.”

Are multiple counts of obstruction of justice impeachable?

[boutons_deux]

Trump Voters Who Heard Mueller Decline To Clear Trump Still Think His Report Clears Trump

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/mueller-report-statement-poll_n_5cf56a0be4b0e346ce82be81

stupid, ignorant fucks

[Spurs Homer]

Trump Voters Who Heard Mueller Decline To Clear Trump Still Think His Report Clears Trump

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/mueller-report-statement-poll_n_5cf56a0be4b0e346ce82be81

stupid, ignorant fucks


The CULT

[boutons_deux]

Ex-Trump aide Hicks agrees to hand over campaign documents to Congress

https://2vwlfu3ynqxb3npfhm3m8lde-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/2019-06-04T164624Z_1_LYNXNPEF531IZ_RTROPTP_4_USA-TRUMP-768x512.jpg

Former White House Communications Director Hope Hicks, once a close aide to President Donald Trump,

has agreed to turn over documents related to his 2016 election campaign to congressional investigators, a top Democratic lawmaker said on Tuesday.

The agreement marks a step forward for House of Representatives Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler in investigations of Republican Trump and his inner circle, digging into the campaign, his turbulent presidency and business interests.

Hicks, Trump’s former campaign press secretary, agreed to supply the documents from the campaign,

despite a White House directive advising her not to provide the committee with material from her subsequent time at the White House.

https://www.politicususa.com/2019/06/05/ex-trump-aide-hicks-agrees-to-hand-over-campaign-documents-to-congress.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=f​eed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+politicususa%2FfJAl+%28Politi cus+USA+%29 (https://www.politicususa.com/2019/06/05/ex-trump-aide-hicks-agrees-to-hand-over-campaign-documents-to-congress.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+politicususa%2FfJAl+%28Politi cus+USA+%29)

How will Trash/Barr tweet-trash Hicks?

[boutons_deux]

We asked every Texan in Congress: Have you read the Mueller report?

We also asked the 38 members of the Texas delegation how Congress should respond to the Mueller report.

https://www.texastribune.org/2019/06/05/did-texas-lawmakers-read-mueller-report-we-asked/

[TSA]

1131613829815627777

[Pavlov]

1131613829815627777Did you miss his Carter Page thread?

1135941025455923200

Read the whole thing. Make sure you eat all that shit, TSA.

CROFL

[Winehole23]

He'll ignore it because it doesn't line up with his priors.

Goldsmith is nobody's libtard, btw.

[RandomGuy]

1131613829815627777

Congrats. You found someone willing to take on the obstruction of justice charges.

Interesting read, and still impeachable, in fact his analysis makes it more imperative, an irony that probably escapes you.

[TSA]

He'll ignore it because it doesn't line up with his priors.

Goldsmith is nobody's libtard, btw.

:lol this one?

1135942455507988480

[Pavlov]

:lolTSA pinning all his hopes on a maybe.

Nothing will come of this.

[RandomGuy]

:lolTSA pinning all his hopes on a maybe.

Nothing will come of this.

TSA is the shambling personification of confirmation bias. It is like watching an icky bug.

[Pavlov]

Goldsmith was actually illustrating how unlikely any or all of those possibilities are and TSA goes all in.:lol

[Winehole23]

:lol this one?

1135942455507988480
That's the one.

You think it backs you up?

[TSA]

That's the one.

You think it backs you up?

I never compared the surveillance of Page to MLK so I’m not even sure what the fuck you’re going on about.

[TSA]

TSA is the shambling personification of confirmation bias. It is like watching an icky bug.

Says one of the sites top 3 Russian collusion pushers :lol

[Pavlov]

I never compared the surveillance of Page to MLK so I’m not even sure what the fuck you’re going on about.MAYBE THERE WAS A CLERICAL ERROR

[Winehole23]

I never compared the surveillance of Page to MLK so I’m not even sure what the fuck you’re going on about.So, what's your take on the Goldsmith thread?

[Pavlov]

MAYBE THERE'S A PEANUT BUTTER SMUDGE ON ONE OF THE RENEWAL APPLICATIONS

[TSA]

So, what's your take on the Goldsmith thread?

I’m still waiting to hear how a comparison I never made didn’t line up with my priors.

[Pavlov]

I’m still waiting to hear how a comparison I never made didn’t line up with my priors.Jesus, you dolt -- Goldsmith says everything about the Page warrants and surveillance looks proper.

That's it.

That's all.