Elon Musk has enraged the Left

[M14 Shooter]

hahah it's a quote, directly from the Mueller Report I linked...you are such a troll

It doesn't matter what you tell him - his belief that Trump is guilty is all he needs.

 

[struth]

It doesn't matter what you tell him - his belief that Trump is guilty is all he needs.

Heck, I am not the one telling him...Mueller and his team are the ones. I am just the messager that linked their report for him.

 

[Catsnmeters]

Why did you vote for Trump?!

I didn't.

 

[otto105]

Geez...you dembot cultist can't even accept the reality of your own partisan witchhunts:

https://www.justice.gov/archives/sco/file/1373816/download

"the investigation did not establish that the Trump Campaign coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities."

Case closed.

One week later, in the first week of May 2016, Papadopoulos suggested to a representative of a foreign government that the Trump Campaign had received indications from the Russian government that it could assist the Campaign through the anonymous release of information damaging to candidate Clinton. Throughout that period of time and for several months thereafter, Papadopoulos worked with Mifsud and two Russian nationals to arrange a meeting between the Campaign and the Russian government. No meeting took place.

Summer 2016. Russian outreach to the Trump Campaign continued into the summer of 2016, as candidate Trump was becoming the presumptive Republican nominee for President. On June 9, 2016, for example, a Russian lawyer met with senior Trump Campaign officials Donald Trump Jr., Jared Kushner, and campaign chairman Paul Manafort to deliver what the email proposing the meeting had described as “official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary.” The materials were offered to Trump Jr. as “part of Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump.” The written communications setting up the meeting showed that the Campaign anticipated receiving information from Russia that could assist candidate Trump’s electoral prospects, but the Russian lawyer’s presentation did not provide such information.

 

[Catsnmeters]

1) show me....it's suppose to be public. So, simply provide the link.

Why would I show you? It isn't my claim. Do your own work.

2) Who's everyone else? Trump? Why would trump want tweeter and facebook to delete this story?

The Kayleigh McKenna email? Not sure.

3) why? why do you think Xiden is above the law?

I don't. I am still waiting for someone to tell me what law he broke that has been revealed by this Twitter info.

4) sadly it looks like Wray went rogue to help Xiden get elected. Now whisleblowers are coming out of the wood works asking that Wray step down, and highlighting his corruption for the demafasict stakinst tactics....https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2022/aug/30/allegations-political-bias-widespread-misconduct-p/

What did he do that is considered going rogue?

5) yeah....why was she locked out of her according for simply talking about the Hunter Xiden laptop story from the NY Post? That's a good question....at this point it looks like it, and all the other people who were censored for discussing it, were censored out of political bias....was it simply just a FBI/tweeter campaign to undermine the election? Or was there some sort of in kind political donations going on? I don't know...I believe the House will get to the bottom of it

Not sure but Trump didn't break the law by simply asking it be allowed to be posted unless he coerced them and I don't think that happened.

 

[otto105]

July 2016 was also the month WikiLeaks first released emails stolen by the GRU from the DNC. On July 22, 2016, WikiLeaks posted thousands of internal DNC documents revealing information about the Clinton Campaign. Within days, there was public reporting that U.S. intelligence agencies had “high confidence” that the Russian government was behind the theft of emails and documents from the DNC. And within a week of the release, a foreign government informed the FBI about its May 2016 interaction with Papadopoulos and his statement that the Russian government could assist the Trump Campaign.

On July 31, 2016, based on the foreign government reporting, the FBI opened an investigation into potential coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the Trump Campaign. Separately, on August 2, 2016, Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort met in New York City with his long-time business associate Konstantin Kilimnik, who the FBI assesses to have ties to Russian intelligence. Kilimnik requested the meeting to deliver in person a peace plan for Ukraine that Manafort acknowledged to the Special Counsel’s Office was a “backdoor” way for Russia to control part of eastern Ukraine; both men believed the plan would require candidate Trump’s assent to succeed (were he to be elected President).

They also discussed the status of the 6 U.S. Department of Justice Attorney Work Product // May Contain Material Protected Under Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e) Trump Campaign and Manafort’s strategy for winning Democratic votes in Midwestern states. Months before that meeting, Manafort had caused internal polling data to be shared with Kilimnik, and the sharing continued for some period of time after their August meeting.

 

[M14 Shooter]

One week later, in the first week of May 2016, Papadopoulos suggested to a representative of a foreign government that the Trump Campaign had received indications from the Russian government that it could assist the Campaign through the anonymous release of information damaging to candidate Clinton. Throughout that period of time and for several months thereafter, Papadopoulos worked with Mifsud and two Russian nationals to arrange a meeting between the Campaign and the Russian government. No meeting took place.

Summer 2016. Russian outreach to the Trump Campaign continued into the summer of 2016, as candidate Trump was becoming the presumptive Republican nominee for President. On June 9, 2016, for example, a Russian lawyer met with senior Trump Campaign officials Donald Trump Jr., Jared Kushner, and campaign chairman Paul Manafort to deliver what the email proposing the meeting had described as “official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary.” The materials were offered to Trump Jr. as “part of Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump.” The written communications setting up the meeting showed that the Campaign anticipated receiving information from Russia that could assist candidate Trump’s electoral prospects, but the Russian lawyer’s presentation did not provide such information.

"the investigation did not establish that the Trump Campaign coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities."
- Mueller report

 

[Indeependent]

I didn't.

I was being sarcastic; you voted for higher prices.

 

[struth]

One week later, in the first week of May 2016, Papadopoulos suggested to a representative of a foreign government that the Trump Campaign had received indications from the Russian government that it could assist the Campaign through the anonymous release of information damaging to candidate Clinton. Throughout that period of time and for several months thereafter, Papadopoulos worked with Mifsud and two Russian nationals to arrange a meeting between the Campaign and the Russian government. No meeting took place.

Summer 2016. Russian outreach to the Trump Campaign continued into the summer of 2016, as candidate Trump was becoming the presumptive Republican nominee for President. On June 9, 2016, for example, a Russian lawyer met with senior Trump Campaign officials Donald Trump Jr., Jared Kushner, and campaign chairman Paul Manafort to deliver what the email proposing the meeting had described as “official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary.” The materials were offered to Trump Jr. as “part of Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump.” The written communications setting up the meeting showed that the Campaign anticipated receiving information from Russia that could assist candidate Trump’s electoral prospects, but the Russian lawyer’s presentation did not provide such information.

ok? so?
https://www.justice.gov/archives/sco/file/1373816/download

"the investigation did not establish that the Trump Campaign coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities."

Moreover, after the Report was submitted to Congress, the Dem run House called Mueller to testify and killed their hoax:

Robert Mueller's testimony before Congress: Full transcript

Read the testimony of former special counsel Robert Mueller after questioning by lawmakers about possible obstruction of justice by Trump and the 2016 Russia Investigation.

www.nbcnews.com

COLLINS:

In your opinion, very thorough, you listed this out in your report, correct?
MUELLER:

Yes.
COLLINS:

Thank you. Is it true, the evidence gathered during your investigation -- given the questions that you've just answered, is it true the evidence gathered during your investigation did not establish that the president was involved in the underlying crime related to Russian election interference as stated in Volume 1, page 7?
MUELLER:

We found insufficient evidence of the president's culpability.
COLLINS:

So that would be a yes.

MUELLER:

Pardon?
COLLINS:

That would be a yes.
MUELLER:

Yes.

 

[struth]

Why would I show you? It isn't my claim. Do your own work.



The Kayleigh McKenna email? Not sure.



I don't. I am still waiting for someone to tell me what law he broke that has been revealed by this Twitter info.



What did he do that is considered going rogue?


Not sure but Trump didn't break the law by simply asking it be allowed to be posted unless he coerced them and I don't think that happened.

1) I looked....it's not there.
2) where in that email did anyone request something be deleted?
3) I don't know if one has....that's why we have investigations.
4) Conspiring with Tweeter to censor news that was damaging to the Xiden campaign
5) Of course he didn't....it was news....why is posting new stories illegal in your mind? I mean I get it might hurt your party....but only Fascist would consider that illegal.

 

[otto105]

"the investigation did not establish that the Trump Campaign coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities."
- Mueller report

I think that you better read the report more closely.

 

[struth]

I think that you better read the report more closely.

that's literally the conclusion by the Mueller team

 

[M14 Shooter]

I think that you better read the report more closely.

"the investigation did not establish that the Trump Campaign coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities."
- Mueller report

 

[otto105]

that's literally the conclusion by the Mueller team

Our investigation found multiple acts by the President that were capable of exerting undue influence over law enforcement investigations, including the Russian-interference and obstruction investigations. The incidents were often carried out through one-on-one meetings in which the President sought to use his official power outside of usual channels. These actions ranged from efforts to remove the Special Counsel and to reverse the effect of the Attorney General’s recusal; to the attempted use of official power to limit the scope of the investigation; to direct and indirect contacts with witnesses with the potential to influence their testimony. Viewing the acts collectively can help to illuminate their significance. For example, the President’s direction to McGahn to have the Special Counsel removed was followed almost immediately by his direction to Lewandowski to tell the Attorney General to limit the scope of the Russia investigation to prospective election-interference only—a temporal connection that suggests that both acts were taken with a related purpose with respect to the investigation.

 

[otto105]

In this investigation, the evidence does not establish that the President was involved in an underlying crime related to Russian election interference. But the evidence does point to a range of other possible personal motives animating the President’s conduct. These include concerns that continued investigation would call into question the legitimacy of his election and potential uncertainty about whether certain events—such as advance notice of WikiLeaks’s release of hacked information or the June 9, 2016 meeting between senior campaign officials and Russians— could be seen as criminal activity by the President, his campaign, or his family. Third, many of the President’s acts directed at witnesses, including discouragement of cooperation with the government and suggestions of possible future pardons, occurred in public view.

While it may be more difficult to establish that public-facing acts were motivated by a corrupt intent, the President’s power to influence actions, persons, and events is enhanced by his unique ability to attract attention through use of mass communications. And no principle of law excludes public acts from the scope of obstruction statutes. If the likely effect of the acts is to intimidate witnesses or alter their testimony, the justice system’s integrity is equally threatened.

 

[struth]

Our investigation found multiple acts by the President that were capable of exerting undue influence over law enforcement investigations, including the Russian-interference and obstruction investigations. The incidents were often carried out through one-on-one meetings in which the President sought to use his official power outside of usual channels. These actions ranged from efforts to remove the Special Counsel and to reverse the effect of the Attorney General’s recusal; to the attempted use of official power to limit the scope of the investigation; to direct and indirect contacts with witnesses with the potential to influence their testimony. Viewing the acts collectively can help to illuminate their significance. For example, the President’s direction to McGahn to have the Special Counsel removed was followed almost immediately by his direction to Lewandowski to tell the Attorney General to limit the scope of the Russia investigation to prospective election-interference only—a temporal connection that suggests that both acts were taken with a related purpose with respect to the investigation.

well that was no the Russian hoax....that was Vol 2, where the Mueller team looked at obstruction, and again couldn't conclude it happened.....they punted to the OLC, the House, and AG...all of which determined that there was no obstruction. Here is the OLC memo: https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000182-d156-d8f9-ad9e-fd7726100000
“Having reviewed the Report in light of the governing legal principles, and the Principles of Federal Prosecution, we conclude that none of those instances would warrant a prosecution for obstruction of justice, without regard to the constitutional constraint on bringing such an action against a sitting president,” the assistant attorney general for the Office of Legal Counsel, Steven Engel, and Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General Edward O’Callaghan wrote in the March 24, 2019, memo.“ In the absence of an underlying offense, the most compelling inference in evaluating the President’s conduct is that he reasonably believed that the Special Counsel’s investigation was interfering with his governing agenda,” Engel and O’Callaghan wrote.

 

[M14 Shooter]

In this investigation, the evidence does not establish that the President was involved in an underlying crime related to Russian election interference. But the evidence does point to a range of other possible personal motives animating the President’s conduct. These include concerns that continued investigation would call into question the legitimacy of his election and potential uncertainty about whether certain events—such as advance notice of WikiLeaks’s release of hacked information or the June 9, 2016 meeting between senior campaign officials and Russians— could be seen as criminal activity by the President, his campaign, or his family. Third, many of the President’s acts directed at witnesses, including discouragement of cooperation with the government and suggestions of possible future pardons, occurred in public view.

While it may be more difficult to establish that public-facing acts were motivated by a corrupt intent, the President’s power to influence actions, persons, and events is enhanced by his unique ability to attract attention through use of mass communications. And no principle of law excludes public acts from the scope of obstruction statutes. If the likely effect of the acts is to intimidate witnesses or alter their testimony, the justice system’s integrity is equally threatened.

Mueller:
"the investigation did not establish that the Trump Campaign coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities."

Mueller:
Three basic elements are common to most of the relevant obstruction statutes: (1) an obstructive act; (2) a nexus between the obstructive act and an official proceeding; and (3) a corrupt intent.

Mueller:
Applying the obstruction statutes to the President’s official conduct would involve determining as a factual matter whether he engaged in an obstructive act, whether the act had a nexus to official proceedings, and whether he was motivated by corrupt intent.

Mueller:
“Acting ‘corruptly’ within the meaning of § 1512(c)(2) means acting with an improper purpose and to engage in conduct knowingly and dishonestly with the specific intent to subvert, impede or obstruct” the relevant proceeding

Mueller:
As an initial matter, the term “corruptly” sets a demanding standard. It requires a concrete showing that a person acted with an intent to obtain an “improper advantage for [him]self or someone else, inconsistent with official duty and the rights of others.”

Mueller:
Direct or indirect action by the President to end a criminal investigation into his own or his family members’ conduct to protect against personal embarrassment or legal liability would constitute a core example of corruptly motivated conduct. So too would action to halt an enforcement proceeding that directly and adversely affected the President’s financial interests for the purpose of protecting those interests. In those examples, official power is being used for the purpose of protecting the President’s personal interests. In contrast, the President’s actions to serve political or policy interests would not qualify as corrupt. The President’s role as head of the government necessarily requires him to take into account political factors in making policy decisions that affect law-enforcement actions and proceedings. For instance, the President’s decision to curtail a law-enforcement investigation to avoid international friction would not implicate the obstruction-of-justice statutes.

Mueller:
Although the obstruction statutes do not require proof of such a crime, the absence of that evidence affects the analysis of
the President’s intent and requires consideration of other possible motives for his conduct

Mueller did not make the determination that Trump acted with corrupt intent because ther were other possible motives for his actions.

 

[struth]

Mueller:
"the investigation did not establish that the Trump Campaign coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities."

Mueller:
Three basic elements are common to most of the relevant obstruction statutes: (1) an obstructive act; (2) a nexus between the obstructive act and an official proceeding; and (3) a corrupt intent.

Mueller:
Applying the obstruction statutes to the President’s official conduct would involve determining as a factual matter whether he engaged in an obstructive act, whether the act had a nexus to official proceedings, and whether he was motivated by corrupt intent.

Mueller:
“Acting ‘corruptly’ within the meaning of § 1512(c)(2) means acting with an improper purpose and to engage in conduct knowingly and dishonestly with the specific intent to subvert, impede or obstruct” the relevant proceeding

Mueller:
As an initial matter, the term “corruptly” sets a demanding standard. It requires a concrete showing that a person acted with an intent to obtain an “improper advantage for [him]self or someone else, inconsistent with official duty and the rights of others.”

Mueller:
Direct or indirect action by the President to end a criminal investigation into his own or his family members’ conduct to protect against personal embarrassment or legal liability would constitute a core example of corruptly motivated conduct. So too would action to halt an enforcement proceeding that directly and adversely affected the President’s financial interests for the purpose of protecting those interests. In those examples, official power is being used for the purpose of protecting the President’s personal interests. In contrast, the President’s actions to serve political or policy interests would not qualify as corrupt. The President’s role as head of the government necessarily requires him to take into account political factors in making policy decisions that affect law-enforcement actions and proceedings. For instance, the President’s decision to curtail a law-enforcement investigation to avoid international friction would not implicate the obstruction-of-justice statutes.

Mueller:
Although the obstruction statutes do not require proof of such a crime, the absence of that evidence affects the analysis of
the President’s intent and requires consideration of other possible motives for his conduct

Mueller did not make the determination that Trump acted with corrupt intent because ther were other possible motives for his actions.

Thanks for laying out those elements....might I point that if Joey Xiden interfered in the FBI/DOJ investigation into his son, and many agents have come forward saying he has, that would be corrupt intent if done so to protect against personal embarrassment....a special prosecutor needs to be appointed....looks like there might be a real high crime here.

 

[Burgermeister]

It was almost sad watching Mueller testify. He was as far gone as Biden is. Elder abuse by these sick libs.

 

[Catsnmeters]

I was being sarcastic; you voted for higher prices.

Speculation.