Mueller Delivers Report on Russia Investigation to Attorney General

[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 on me baton to Darrin in this thread is a sight to behold.

[spurraider21]

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

ditto tbh

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.

[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.

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

[koriwhat]

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

[koriwhat]

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

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" 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 ing 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 ing idiot.

He was obviously talking about two years of the Russian collusion investigation you ing 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 ing mental gnat. Even by TSA's own definition of the term.

If you had actually read it, instead of being a brainwashed , 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 ing 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 ing 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 ing 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 ing 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. Do entary 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 do entary 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, ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■