How nice.
Enjoy, enjoy!
Poor Chris "I know" Cuomo
This is what happens to old pieces of caucasian people - who have been racists their entire life -
Poor Chris "I know" Cuomo
they end up brainwashed by a con man white supremacist - and end up on tv shows justifying and rationalizing the crimes of their white supremacist hero -
just because they are too ing old to learn something new and will go to the grave with this racist hate -
pathetic
and others - just do it on the internet.
Doubly pathetic.
Too bad for you that your "great white supremacist hope" couldn't at least have been a decent person instead of a ing criminal traitor.
Now you are stuck defending racism, criminality, and treasonous behavior.
The country would be better served if you just drank the kool-aid now.
Rosey sez the Russian stuff in Mueller's report is just the tip of the iceberg
Fat rageaholic is back. Careful there Corky, you might injure your Downs.
*
Last edited by CosmicCowboy; 04-29-2019 at 11:11 AM.
Sup, loser? Getting bored with your Spurs Homer alt? Had to call in your other alt to back you up? Life ting on you again and needed your ManlyMan internet bully schtick to make yourself feel better? Loooozer.
Sucks to be you, doesn't it?
As has been noted, succeeding or not is irrelevant to the charge. You can tackle a witness and attempt to keep them from testifying against you, and still be guilty, even if they eventually succeed in getting to the courthouse.
As the Mueller report, as well as other legal scholars noted, success in obstruction is irrelevant. Read the statute, or the report, the attempt IS the crime.
Making the question remain:
If the president commits multiple acts of obstruction of justice, through abuse of the powers of the presidency, should he be impeached and removed from office?
Sup, loser? Getting bored with your Spurs Homer alt? Had to call in your other alt to back you up? Life ting on you again and needed your ManlyMan internet bully schtick to make yourself feel better? Loooozer.
Sucks to be you, doesn't it?
Mueller report pretty clearly shows what would commonly be considered to be collusion.Two of the biggest Russia hoax pushers deflecting to Clinton and Seth Rich
Tell you what, provide a working definition of the word that you accept, and we can walk through the report findings to see what it actually found.
Mueller report pretty clearly shows what would commonly be considered to be collusion.
Tell you what, provide a working definition of the word that you accept, and we can walk through the report findings to see what it actually shows.
col·lu·sion
/kəˈlo͞oZHən/
noun
noun: collusion
secret or illegal cooperation or conspiracy, especially in order to cheat or deceive others.
1. "The investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities."
2. "The investigation examined whether [contacts between Russia and Trump figures] involved or resulted in coordination or a conspiracy with the Trump Campaign and Russia, including with respect to Russia providing assistance to the Campaign in exchange for any sort of favorable treatment in the future. Based on the available information, the investigation did not establish such coordination."
3. "The investigation did not establish that [Carter] Page coordinated with the Russian government in its efforts to interfere with the 2016 election."
4. "The Office did not identify evidence in those [contacts between Russians and people around Trump after the GOP convention] of coordination between the Campaign and the Russian government."
5. "The Office did not identify evidence of a connection between Manafort's sharing polling data and Russia's interference in the election ... [and] the investigation did not establish that Manafort otherwise coordinated with the Russian government on its election-interference efforts."
6. "The investigation did not establish that these [contacts between Russians and people around Trump during the transition] reflected or cons uted coordination between the Trump Campaign and Russia in its election interference activities."
7. "The investigation did not identify evidence that any U.S. persons conspired or coordinated with the [Russian disinformation campaign]."
Five Things I Learned From the Mueller Report
A careful reading of the dense do ent delivers some urgent insights.
Here are five conclusions I drew from the exercise:
The president committed crimes.
the facts he recounts describe criminal behavior.
They describe criminal behavior even if we allow the president’s—and the attorney general’s—argument that
facially valid exercises of presidential authority cannot be obstructions of justice.
They do this because they describe obstructive activity that does not involve facially valid exercises of presidential power at all.
The president also committed impeachable offenses.
Crimes and impeachable offenses are not the same thing, though they are overlapping categories.
there simply is no plausible way to understand this fact pattern as a good-faith exercise of presidential power.
It describes a frank abuse of power:
a sustained demand for a wholly self-interested investigative outcome;
a willingness to disrupt a crucial ins ution to get that outcome,
to retaliate against an official who would not deliver it, and
to set the entire apparatus of the White House to lying about the reason for the action; and
the recruitment of senior Justice Department officials to create a pretextual paper trail to support it.
Trump was not complicit in the Russian social-media conspiracy.
It is a story of failed immunity on the U.S. side to outside interference—and aggressive Russian exploitation of the absence of democratic antibodies to fight off such manipulation.
It was able to trick prominent people into engaging with and promoting its dummy accounts.
It was able to exploit social-media companies.
And it was able to make
a series of contacts with Trump campaign affiliates and to get those figures—plus Trump himself—to engage with and promote social-media content that was part of a hostile power’s covert efforts to influence the American electorate.
Though not intentional or criminal on the U.S. side, this pattern shows a troubling degree of vulnerability on the part of the U.S. political system to outside influence campaigns.
Trump’s complicity in the Russian hacking operation and his campaign’s contacts with the Russians present a more complicated picture.
If there wasn’t collusion on the hacking, it sure wasn’t for lack of trying.
Indeed, the Mueller report makes clear that
Trump personally ordered an attempt to obtain Hillary Clinton’s emails; and
people associated with the campaign pursued this believing they were dealing with Russian hackers.
Trump also personally engaged in discussions about coordinating public-relations strategy around WikiLeaks releases of hacked emails.
At least one person associated with the campaign was in touch directly with the Guccifer 2.0 persona—which is to say with Russian military intelligence.
And Donald Trump Jr. was directly in touch with WikiLeaks—from whom he obtained a password to a hacked database.
There are reasons none of these incidents amount to crimes—good reasons, in my view, in most cases, viable judgment calls in others.
But the picture it all paints of the president’s conduct is anything but exonerating.
The counterintelligence dimensions of the entire affair remain a mystery.
Because the Mueller investigation was born out of a counterintelligence investigation, there has been an enduring impression that it had both criminal and counterintelligence elements.
The Mueller investigation was a criminal probe. Full stop.
It was not a counterintelligence probe.
Mueller then answers the question of what happened to the counterintelligence components of the investigation: The FBI took responsibility for them.
After the blood-letting at the bureau that saw the entire senior leadership replaced precisely as it was engaged with counterintelligence questions involving Trumpworld and Russia, who at the bureau now is going to push such questions?
It would be the deepest of ironies if the Mueller investigation showed evidence that the president had committed crimes and had committed impeachable offenses, and
if he had painted a remarkable historical portrait of the relationship between Trumpworld and the Russian government,
but if at the same time, the core counterintelligence concerns that gave rise to it and
that have haunted the Trump presidency from the beginning went unaddressed.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/04/ben-wittes-five-conclusions-mueller-report/588259/
that CI investigation did not disappear into thin air
mueller never mentions the memo that trump wrote after firing comey - stating his bull reasoning
rosenstein ed up when he obtained a copy and gave mccabe a copy
mccabe turned it over to mueller
mueller is silent on all of this
but the CI investigation rolls on
Mueller report says "thorough FBI investigation" might have implicated Trump in criminal conspiracy
One section offers a strong suggestion that Mueller believed he was investigating a possible criminal conspiracy
One section, from Mueller’s analysis of President Donald
Trump’s reaction the public confirmation of the FBI’s Russia investigation, and
his subsequent firing of then-FBI director James Comey,
offers a strong suggestion that the special counsel believed he was investigating a possible criminal conspiracy.
This section of the analysis comes after Mueller’s investigators lay out evidence that Comey’s firing meets the three common elements in federal obstruction statutes —
an obstructive act,
a nexus between the obstructive act and an official proceeding, and
a corrupt intent.
“The President had a motive to put the FBI’s Russia investigation behind him,” Mueller’s team concluded in that analysis.
“The evidence does not establish that the termination of Corney was designed to cover up a conspiracy between the Trump Campaign and Russia.”
But, as the two sentences flagged by Frum point out, Mueller’s team believed that
a thorough FBI investigation would have turned up, at minimum, personally or politically damaging evidence against the president, or,
at worst, evidence implicating Trump in a criminal conspiracy.
https://www.salon.com/2019/05/05/mueller-report-show-thorough-fbi-investigation-might-have-implicated-trump-in-criminal-conspiracy_partner/
let me give you the punch line to your post;
There is a current thorough FBI investigation being conducted on trump and his involvement in this conspiracy/russian attack. This is the counter-intelligence investigation.
Mueller sets ‘tentative date’ to appear before House Judiciary Committee to discuss Trump investigation
Mueller has “tentatively” agreed to appear before the Democratic-controlled House Judiciary Committee on
May 15,
where he will answer questions about his 400-page report on President Donald Trump.
https://www.rawstory.com/2019/05/mueller-sets-tentative-date-to-appear-before-house-judiciary-committee-to-discuss-trump-investigation/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaig n=Feed%3A+TheRawStory+%28The+Raw+Story%29
now
lets watch and see how much trump/barr try to block this
Robert Mueller Was Wrong.
President Trump Can Be Indicted
There is not a syllable in the text of the Cons ution that supports the conclusion
reached by either the Nixon-appointed OLC lawyer that Nixon was immune or the Clinton-appointed OLC lawyer that Clinton was immune.
The foundation of Mueller’s reluctance to indict is rotten to the core.
As I have written previously, both of the OLC opinions upon which Mueller relied have been described by scholars as “shaky” and “political.”
Indeed, recent historical discoveries (of which Mueller might not even be aware) make them even weaker.
To rehash what happened:
The OLC rendered the first such opinion in 1973.
On its face, it is dubious.
It derived from the Department’s criminal investigation of REPUG Vice President Spiro Agnew.
I was a member of Agnew’s legal team, and we argued the issue directly with Attorney General Elliot Richardson.
We were hardly objective historians.
We were advocates for our client, and
we advanced the theory that an in bent Vice President was immune from criminal prosecution.
One of the bases of our argument was that inasmuch as some scholars opined the Article II President was immune,
the Article II Vice President must be immune as well.
Richardson sent the question to the OLC and asked for an objective opinion.
What he got, instead, was a politically dishonest one.
To use one of President Trump’s preferred terms, the OLC response was “rigged.”
The truth was recently uncovered via the historical research done by Michael Yarvitz, a producer for The Rachel Maddow Show.
Yarvitz, working on the background of the Agnew case for what is now the Peabody-nominated podcast, Bag Man,
located Richardson’s Executive Assistant at the time, J. T. Smith.
Smith recalled that the OLC lawyer who ultimately researched and wrote the opinion, told Smith that the matter of who was immune from prosecution was unclear.
But instead of saying so in his report, this OLC lawyer took the easy way out and asked Smith, What does the Attorney General want me to say?
Smith admits telling the OLC lawyer, in effect,
The Attorney General wanted a report saying the Vice President was not immune.
The OLC lawyer obeyed.
In an opinion that obliged the wishes of both the Attorney General and the President (each of whom wanted Agnew gone for different reasons),
the OLC opinion writer threaded the needle, and as a bonus, in the tradition of political loyalists, answered a question he was not asked:
He concluded that while Agnew was not immune, Nixon was.
Decades later, the question came up again.
In 2000, while President Bill Clinton was under attack for possible criminal indictment for perjury, his Department of Justice produced an update to the 1973 opinion.
By then, the Supreme Court had rendered two opinions that established a doctrine of Presidential vulnerability:
In Nixon v. U.S., the
Court concluded the President was not immune from a grand jury subpoena, and in Clinton v. Jones,
the Court held the President was not immune from a civil suit for damages arising out of his conduct prior to his inauguration.
Nevertheless, the Clinton-appointed OLC, citing the 1973 opinion, concluded that Clinton was immune from prosecution.
It is notable that both OLC opinions rely on practical considerations:
The President now carries a heavier burden than he did when the Cons ution was adopted, they argue, and
therefore the President has become too busy to deal with an indictment.
One can imagine the late Justice Antonin Scalia hearing such an argument and scolding the DOJ lawyer with his famous remark,
“[The Cons ution] is not a living do ent. It’s dead, dead, dead.”
Inasmuch as neither opinion cites cons utional language clearly supporting its conclusion,
one assumes a conservative Supreme Court — like the one we have now — would apply the Scalia “textual” approach to cons utional interpretation,
and firmly reject both OLC opinions.
Regardless of Attorney General William Barr’s bogus decision that no charges should be brought,
this matter deserves its day in court.
Had the rigid Mueller applied the law instead of politically rigged DOJ doctrines,
Trump’s now famous prediction may have actually come to pass: In his own words, he would be “f–ked.“
http://time.com/5574520/mueller-repo...ction-justice/
This is all politics. This has nothing to do with facts, reality, or the rule of law. Just politics.
There was a great line in the movie "Evita" (1996). "Oh, what a circus, oh, what a show!"
Trump Says It Directly: "Mueller Should Not Testify"
"No redos for the Dems!" the president bizarrely declared in a tweet
https://www.commondreams.org/news/20...?cd-origin=rss
Cory Booker Makes The Perfect Case For Impeaching William Barr
“He has eroded his credibility to the point where I believe he should resign.
He has clearly misled Congress…
I believe he should resign.
I believe that everything should be on the table,
but when you have a person who has undermined the independence of the attorney general’s office.
A guy who is literally overseeing ongoing investigations into criminal activity and this president, and
you’ve lost your ability to trust,
you were clearly trying to spin.
You were acting more like Rudy Giuliani than the independent attorney general of this country.
I’m definitely worried.”
https://www.politicususa.com/2019/05...liam-barr.html
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
