It's Mueller Time!

[jc456]

Felix Sater to Michael Cohen in 2015: “I will get Putin on this program and we will get Donald elected ... Buddy our boy can become President of the USA and we can engineer it." - page 79...

No fraud occurred. What some opportunist puts in an email to finagle a business deal and feather his own financial dress does not make the President complicit in anything. The opportunist (Safer) obviously failed as the deal was ultimately scrapped.

And that is EXACTLY what the 2 yr, $35 million witch-hunt concluded, indicting not one American for conspiring or cooperating with Russian meddling (or collusion).

Small-minded people cannot discern the meaning of adult discourse (or its purpose) because they have no experience with it.

I’m just laughing at how fking stupid someone might be that 20 people who wanted trump dead couldn’t find anything and they still think there’ something there those enraged 20 couldn’t find

 

[jc456]

Neither Trump nor Hillary will ever see the inside of a cell, no matter if they've broken the law or not.

Ha, maybe. Trump is clearly a felon and may require a pardon.

Clearly cause only you see it! That’s how clear it is. That’s actually called psychotic/ TDS

 

[jc456]

The two volumes reached different conclusions.
The first volume cleared trump of collusion/conspiracy, and Mueller did so state.
The second volume did not clear trump of obstruction, and as Mueller said, they would have cleared him if they felt confident he had not obstructed justice.... and they didn't "exonerate him."

That's right.
Keeping it simple: cleared of conspiracy in the first volume, but guilty of extensive obstruction in second volume that could not lead to indictment because of the office of legal counsel rule/opinion (sitting presidents can not be indicted).

Mueller's hands were tied.

I think MAGA hats prevent logic from reaching parts of the brain (likely the neocortex).

Nope not at all clearly revoked in the afternoon testimony. You fell asleep.

 

[jc456]

Carter Page worked in russia between 03 and 07. after returning to the US, Page became acquainted with 2 russian intelligence officers, one of whom was charged in 2015 with conspiracy to act as an unregistered agent of Russia.

that's in the report!

And?

Lots and lots and lots of people have visited, lived in, and worked in Russia in every year that the current generation has been alive. And the vast majority of them were doing so legally, ethically, and without any suspicion. As was Carter Page. A top 10% Naval Academy graduate he was awarded the Trident Scholar program, has worked for the Navy and the U.S. Congress (House Armed Services Committee if I remember right) as well as distinguishing himself in various other ways involving foreign relations. He most lately established his own business but hasn't fully gotten off the ground. His business does work with Russian energy development though.

It is perfectly reasonable and would be expected that he would meet Russian government officials from time to time. It was his knowledge of international workings, especially Russia, that caused him to be drafted briefly as advisor to the Trump campaign though he did little or nothing for it.

Carter Page's name has been dragged through the mud, his colleagues and friends have been harassed, and he has been seriously damaged financially by legal fees Mueller's investigation forced him to incur. And there has not even been a suggestion of any crime, minor misdemeanor or felony, that he has committed.

He is one of many who have been unfairly and maliciously damaged by Mueller's team. And we really should have some way to make people like him whole when we have one of these witch hunts.

Fk dude Franklin Roosevelt and Ike kissed their Stalin ass! I love completely stupid as I watch the leftists in here

 

[hadit]

Neither Trump nor Hillary will ever see the inside of a cell, no matter if they've broken the law or not.

Ha, maybe. Trump is clearly a felon and may require a pardon.

Hillary likewise. She's clearly broken the law, they just declined to prosecute.

False. Intent is part and parcel of the laws to which you refer.

Mishandling classified info is not dependent on intent. Negligence is a problem.

 

[FA_Q2]

If I tell my pal I want to rob a bank and he tells me I should not rob a bank, and I do not rob a bank, there is no ******* crime.

Do you even law?

Then you didn't even attempt to rob the bank.

Jeez, you cultists are ******* brain-dead.

Walk into a bank, point a gun at a teller and demand money .... then run out of the bank ......

Guess where you end up if the police catch you even though your attempt to rob the bank failed you.

Trump tells McGhan to fire Muller. McGhan refuses to. Trump had the full authority to fire Muller (and this is not in dispute). Trump does not fire Muller or McGhan.

So why is this scenario equal to the running into the bank and pointing a gun at the teller rather than telling your friend that you want to rob a bank, him refusing and then not robbing the bank?

No, trump did not have ANY authority to fire Mueller. The only ones who don't dispute that are brain-dead cons. Your first clue should have been -- trump would have fired Mueller of he could have when McGhan refused to do so.

Your second clue is the law ...

28 CFR § 600.7 - Conduct and accountability.

(d) The Special Counsel may be disciplined or removed from office only by the personal action of the Attorney General. The Attorney General may remove a Special Counsel for misconduct, dereliction of duty, incapacity, conflict of interest, or for other good cause, including violation of Departmental policies. The Attorney General shall inform the Special Counsel in writing of the specific reason for his or her removal.​

I stand corrected on firing Muller himself. You avoided the question though. My question still stands.

I don't know if the question is valid since we're talking about two different crimes, each with different components, but yes, even your bank robbery scenario could amount to criminal solicitation, even if no bank robbery takes place...

Criminal Solicitation | Justia

But there is no question that trump tried to have Mueller fired and there is no question he asked his White House Counsel to lie and deny they ever had that conversation after it became public knowledge. The fact that trump failed to achieve his goal to have Mueller fired does not mean he is not guilty of obstruction of justice.

Nor does it mean that he is guilty. The lies are not relevant unless he tried to get McGhan to lie to investigators. Politicians lie continually about things to put a good face on them publicly.

The key is, of course, intent. Intent is very difficult to establish particularly in this case where they were not able to establish the underlying crime itself. Again, that does not mean that he did not obstruct justice but equally does not establish that he did either.

Further, firing Muller would have had almost no impact on the investigation itself as well.

 

[basquebromance]

Mueller: you cant indict a sitting president

AOC: but what if he's standing?!

 

[Obiwan]

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Mishandling classified info is not dependent on intent.

Actually, the possible charges were completely dependent on intent. Comey literally spelled it out.

 

[Faun]

Then you didn't even attempt to rob the bank.

Jeez, you cultists are ******* brain-dead.

Walk into a bank, point a gun at a teller and demand money .... then run out of the bank ......

Guess where you end up if the police catch you even though your attempt to rob the bank failed you.

Trump tells McGhan to fire Muller. McGhan refuses to. Trump had the full authority to fire Muller (and this is not in dispute). Trump does not fire Muller or McGhan.

So why is this scenario equal to the running into the bank and pointing a gun at the teller rather than telling your friend that you want to rob a bank, him refusing and then not robbing the bank?

No, trump did not have ANY authority to fire Mueller. The only ones who don't dispute that are brain-dead cons. Your first clue should have been -- trump would have fired Mueller of he could have when McGhan refused to do so.

Your second clue is the law ...

28 CFR § 600.7 - Conduct and accountability.

(d) The Special Counsel may be disciplined or removed from office only by the personal action of the Attorney General. The Attorney General may remove a Special Counsel for misconduct, dereliction of duty, incapacity, conflict of interest, or for other good cause, including violation of Departmental policies. The Attorney General shall inform the Special Counsel in writing of the specific reason for his or her removal.​

I stand corrected on firing Muller himself. You avoided the question though. My question still stands.

I don't know if the question is valid since we're talking about two different crimes, each with different components, but yes, even your bank robbery scenario could amount to criminal solicitation, even if no bank robbery takes place...

Criminal Solicitation | Justia

But there is no question that trump tried to have Mueller fired and there is no question he asked his White House Counsel to lie and deny they ever had that conversation after it became public knowledge. The fact that trump failed to achieve his goal to have Mueller fired does not mean he is not guilty of obstruction of justice.

Nor does it mean that he is guilty. The lies are not relevant unless he tried to get McGhan to lie to investigators. Politicians lie continually about things to put a good face on them publicly.

The key is, of course, intent. Intent is very difficult to establish particularly in this case where they were not able to establish the underlying crime itself. Again, that does not mean that he did not obstruct justice but equally does not establish that he did either.

Further, firing Muller would have had almost no impact on the investigation itself as well.

NADLER: But under DOJ -- under Department of Justice policy, the president could be prosecuted for obstruction of justice crimes after he leaves office, correct?

MUELLER: True.

 

[jc456]

Mueller: you cant indict a sitting president

AOC: but what if he's standing?!

Still need a charge

 

[WEATHER53]

Mueller: you cant indict a sitting president

AOC: but what if he's standing?!

Still need a charge

Libs just need a wish or feeling

 

[FA_Q2]

Trump tells McGhan to fire Muller. McGhan refuses to. Trump had the full authority to fire Muller (and this is not in dispute). Trump does not fire Muller or McGhan.

So why is this scenario equal to the running into the bank and pointing a gun at the teller rather than telling your friend that you want to rob a bank, him refusing and then not robbing the bank?

No, trump did not have ANY authority to fire Mueller. The only ones who don't dispute that are brain-dead cons. Your first clue should have been -- trump would have fired Mueller of he could have when McGhan refused to do so.

Your second clue is the law ...

28 CFR § 600.7 - Conduct and accountability.

(d) The Special Counsel may be disciplined or removed from office only by the personal action of the Attorney General. The Attorney General may remove a Special Counsel for misconduct, dereliction of duty, incapacity, conflict of interest, or for other good cause, including violation of Departmental policies. The Attorney General shall inform the Special Counsel in writing of the specific reason for his or her removal.​

I stand corrected on firing Muller himself. You avoided the question though. My question still stands.

I don't know if the question is valid since we're talking about two different crimes, each with different components, but yes, even your bank robbery scenario could amount to criminal solicitation, even if no bank robbery takes place...

Criminal Solicitation | Justia

But there is no question that trump tried to have Mueller fired and there is no question he asked his White House Counsel to lie and deny they ever had that conversation after it became public knowledge. The fact that trump failed to achieve his goal to have Mueller fired does not mean he is not guilty of obstruction of justice.

Nor does it mean that he is guilty. The lies are not relevant unless he tried to get McGhan to lie to investigators. Politicians lie continually about things to put a good face on them publicly.

The key is, of course, intent. Intent is very difficult to establish particularly in this case where they were not able to establish the underlying crime itself. Again, that does not mean that he did not obstruct justice but equally does not establish that he did either.

Further, firing Muller would have had almost no impact on the investigation itself as well.

NADLER: But under DOJ -- under Department of Justice policy, the president could be prosecuted for obstruction of justice crimes after he leaves office, correct?

MUELLER: True.

You are not even bothering to address my comments anymore.

 

[Faun]

No, trump did not have ANY authority to fire Mueller. The only ones who don't dispute that are brain-dead cons. Your first clue should have been -- trump would have fired Mueller of he could have when McGhan refused to do so.

Your second clue is the law ...

28 CFR § 600.7 - Conduct and accountability.

(d) The Special Counsel may be disciplined or removed from office only by the personal action of the Attorney General. The Attorney General may remove a Special Counsel for misconduct, dereliction of duty, incapacity, conflict of interest, or for other good cause, including violation of Departmental policies. The Attorney General shall inform the Special Counsel in writing of the specific reason for his or her removal.​

I stand corrected on firing Muller himself. You avoided the question though. My question still stands.

I don't know if the question is valid since we're talking about two different crimes, each with different components, but yes, even your bank robbery scenario could amount to criminal solicitation, even if no bank robbery takes place...

Criminal Solicitation | Justia

But there is no question that trump tried to have Mueller fired and there is no question he asked his White House Counsel to lie and deny they ever had that conversation after it became public knowledge. The fact that trump failed to achieve his goal to have Mueller fired does not mean he is not guilty of obstruction of justice.

Nor does it mean that he is guilty. The lies are not relevant unless he tried to get McGhan to lie to investigators. Politicians lie continually about things to put a good face on them publicly.

The key is, of course, intent. Intent is very difficult to establish particularly in this case where they were not able to establish the underlying crime itself. Again, that does not mean that he did not obstruct justice but equally does not establish that he did either.

Further, firing Muller would have had almost no impact on the investigation itself as well.

NADLER: But under DOJ -- under Department of Justice policy, the president could be prosecuted for obstruction of justice crimes after he leaves office, correct?

MUELLER: True.

You are not even bothering to address my comments anymore.

Of course I did. You said Mueller didn't say trump was necessarily guilty, to which I pointed out he confirmed trump could be prosecuted when he's no longer president. That, along with Muelker not exonerating trump of obstruction as he did with conspiracy, is a strong indication trump is guilty and could face prosecution some day.

And yes, trump did try to get McGhan to lie, but I'm not sure to whom.

And your claim that firing Mueller would not affect the investigation is a throw away argument. You're making that up as no one knows how such a firing would have played out. For all anyone knows, that could have ended the investigation just as trump ended the FBI investigation when he fired Comey. Ir maybe he would have gotten a replacement who would circle the wagon for him like Barr is doing.

The fact remains, he tried to get Mueller fired because he feared how Mueller's investigationmight turn out. That's the very definition of obstruction.

 

[Snouter]

Wow, TDS is alive and well with the remaining anti-President Trump nutcases who still post now that most anti-President Trump nutcases have officially retired (disappeared because they are too embarrassed to post anymore).

Folks, with all that have been revealed, anyone with a Mueller avatar is a troll having laughs, or a mentally ill idiot.

 

[rjs330]

If there was evidence of obstruction it would have been stated. Too bad Mule-er himself said he was NEVER obstructed. That kills your case . Dismissed.

Evidence of obstruction is rife in volume two.

You can’t obstruct something that never occurred and Muellers fact based logical decision does not match with you emotional suppositions

Of course you can. Obstruction of justice is a separate charge from the underlying charge.

According to your nonsense, I could commit a crime but get away with it if I can successfully obstruct the investigation into my crime to the point it can't be proven I committed a crime. That makes sense to you, does it?

Eventually your false emotions will cause you to burst and you will never mature into a doe.
One cannot obstruct something that never occurred no matter how much emotional “it is so” you try to put on it.

I see, so again, according to you, it's not obstruction of justice if, let's say, I commit a crime and then bribe the lead investigator to find no evidence of a crime to where the underlying charge is dropped .

But Mueller said he wasn't obstructed. And he found no underlying crime to boot. And Mueller never stated Trump obstructed. Your example had nothing to do with the facts at hand.

 

[Faun]

Evidence of obstruction is rife in volume two.

You can’t obstruct something that never occurred and Muellers fact based logical decision does not match with you emotional suppositions

Of course you can. Obstruction of justice is a separate charge from the underlying charge.

According to your nonsense, I could commit a crime but get away with it if I can successfully obstruct the investigation into my crime to the point it can't be proven I committed a crime. That makes sense to you, does it?

Eventually your false emotions will cause you to burst and you will never mature into a doe.
One cannot obstruct something that never occurred no matter how much emotional “it is so” you try to put on it.

I see, so again, according to you, it's not obstruction of justice if, let's say, I commit a crime and then bribe the lead investigator to find no evidence of a crime to where the underlying charge is dropped .

But Mueller said he wasn't obstructed. And he found no underlying crime to boot. And Mueller never stated Trump obstructed. Your example had nothing to do with the facts at hand.

Lack of an underlying crime does not invalidate obstruction. Mueller also affirmed obstruction is still a crime even if the attempt to obstruct is unsuccessful; and Mueller also affirmed that trump could face prosecution for obstruction once he's out of office.

 

[rjs330]

I stand corrected on firing Muller himself. You avoided the question though. My question still stands.

I don't know if the question is valid since we're talking about two different crimes, each with different components, but yes, even your bank robbery scenario could amount to criminal solicitation, even if no bank robbery takes place...

Criminal Solicitation | Justia

But there is no question that trump tried to have Mueller fired and there is no question he asked his White House Counsel to lie and deny they ever had that conversation after it became public knowledge. The fact that trump failed to achieve his goal to have Mueller fired does not mean he is not guilty of obstruction of justice.

Nor does it mean that he is guilty. The lies are not relevant unless he tried to get McGhan to lie to investigators. Politicians lie continually about things to put a good face on them publicly.

The key is, of course, intent. Intent is very difficult to establish particularly in this case where they were not able to establish the underlying crime itself. Again, that does not mean that he did not obstruct justice but equally does not establish that he did either.

Further, firing Muller would have had almost no impact on the investigation itself as well.

NADLER: But under DOJ -- under Department of Justice policy, the president could be prosecuted for obstruction of justice crimes after he leaves office, correct?

MUELLER: True.

You are not even bothering to address my comments anymore.

Of course I did. You said Mueller didn't say trump was necessarily guilty, to which I pointed out he confirmed trump could be prosecuted when he's no longer president. That, along with Muelker not exonerating trump of obstruction as he did with conspiracy, is a strong indication trump is guilty and could face prosecution some day.

And yes, trump did try to get McGhan to lie, but I'm not sure to whom.

And your claim that firing Mueller would not affect the investigation is a throw away argument. You're making that up as no one knows how such a firing would have played out. For all anyone knows, that could have ended the investigation just as trump ended the FBI investigation when he fired Comey. Ir maybe he would have gotten a replacement who would circle the wagon for him like Barr is doing.

The fact remains, he tried to get Mueller fired because he feared how Mueller's investigationmight turn out. That's the very definition of obstruction.

A generic question with a generic answer means little to nothing. He carefully phrased the question. He didn't ask if there was enough evidence to prosecute Trump for obstruction after he left office. Mueller didn't accuse Trump of obstructing at any point.

 

[Faun]

I don't know if the question is valid since we're talking about two different crimes, each with different components, but yes, even your bank robbery scenario could amount to criminal solicitation, even if no bank robbery takes place...

Criminal Solicitation | Justia

But there is no question that trump tried to have Mueller fired and there is no question he asked his White House Counsel to lie and deny they ever had that conversation after it became public knowledge. The fact that trump failed to achieve his goal to have Mueller fired does not mean he is not guilty of obstruction of justice.

Nor does it mean that he is guilty. The lies are not relevant unless he tried to get McGhan to lie to investigators. Politicians lie continually about things to put a good face on them publicly.

The key is, of course, intent. Intent is very difficult to establish particularly in this case where they were not able to establish the underlying crime itself. Again, that does not mean that he did not obstruct justice but equally does not establish that he did either.

Further, firing Muller would have had almost no impact on the investigation itself as well.

NADLER: But under DOJ -- under Department of Justice policy, the president could be prosecuted for obstruction of justice crimes after he leaves office, correct?

MUELLER: True.

You are not even bothering to address my comments anymore.

Of course I did. You said Mueller didn't say trump was necessarily guilty, to which I pointed out he confirmed trump could be prosecuted when he's no longer president. That, along with Muelker not exonerating trump of obstruction as he did with conspiracy, is a strong indication trump is guilty and could face prosecution some day.

And yes, trump did try to get McGhan to lie, but I'm not sure to whom.

And your claim that firing Mueller would not affect the investigation is a throw away argument. You're making that up as no one knows how such a firing would have played out. For all anyone knows, that could have ended the investigation just as trump ended the FBI investigation when he fired Comey. Ir maybe he would have gotten a replacement who would circle the wagon for him like Barr is doing.

The fact remains, he tried to get Mueller fired because he feared how Mueller's investigationmight turn out. That's the very definition of obstruction.

A generic question with a generic answer means little to nothing. He carefully phrased the question. He didn't ask if there was enough evidence to prosecute Trump for obstruction after he left office. Mueller didn't accuse Trump of obstructing at any point.

Along with that is his report which details many instances of obstruction.

 

[jc456]

Mueller: you cant indict a sitting president

AOC: but what if he's standing?!

Still need a charge

Libs just need a wish or feeling

I think they're pulling their wangs.