Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Russia probes II -- The Mueller Report


Tiggs

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Merc14 said:

Who F'ing cares?  Listen melon head, I didn't say tomorrow, it will be over the next few months and you best not play like you are way ahead here, you have been losing since this started and the Mueller report must've crushed you.  I called it exactly and what did you call?  LMAO

Sheesh, you always get mad when someone tells you that you were right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Gromdor said:

Sheesh, you always get mad when someone tells you that you were right?

I told you Mueller wouldn't find any crimes and definitely no collusion.  Score one for me.  I told you Mueller would write an incendiary report that would keep you and people like you, p***ed off and still with hope until the election.  Score two for me.  What is your score grommy?  Yeah,a big old goose egg so why are you crowing kike you actually know something?  You're clueless son and  have been on he wrong  side of things since day one so have a little humility, I never took you for a brain dead leftist but maybe I need to change that opinion.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, ExpandMyMind said:

Have you read any of the report? Like at all? There is a ton of evidence of conspiracy, never mind collusion. Just not enough to convict. 

I think you are confusing collusion and conspiracy. Collusion is undeniable, but collusion has no basis in law and as such was not investigated. Conspiracy was investigated. I suggest a quick search to find out the definition of collusion and you'll soon realise that many of the campaign connections with Russia fit the definition perfectly. 

The Trump Tower meeting was criminal, according to Mueller, with the only reason for Jr not being indicted being that it would be hard to prove that Jr knew it was illegal. That's pretty damning, wouldn't you say? I seem to remember pretty much every Republican on here moaning about Hillary being let off for that exact reason. Have they all suddenly changed their minds?

It's so weird that people are acting as though the report completely cleared Trump and his campaign. Madness to be honest.

You seem to confuse inappropriate or ill-advised with criminal. Criminal can be prosecuted. Lord knows, Trump and his minions are far from angelic in demeanor and behavior. Neither Left or Right holds a monopoly on being criminally stupid, something people in high places, of all stripes, seem to always get a pass on (Except Martha Stuart). That Mueller, of all people, after two years of investigation, indicted no Americans for criminal conspiracy to collude with foreign nationals to tamper with the election, pretty much says it all. Game over. They'll never have the votes for a successful Impeachment. Sorry it's not the result you wanted; God knows you're not alone in that. From this point on, all Trump haters can do is impotently flog a dead horse, sounding shriller, looking angrier while egg drips from their faces. Ain't Politics wonderful?

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

You seem to confuse inappropriate or ill-advised with criminal. Criminal can be prosecuted. Lord knows, Trump and his minions are far from angelic in demeanor and behavior. Neither Left or Right holds a monopoly on being criminally stupid, something people in high places, of all stripes, seem to always get a pass on (Except Martha Stuart). That Mueller, of all people, after two years of investigation, indicted no Americans for criminal conspiracy to collude with foreign nationals to tamper with the election, pretty much says it all. Game over. They'll never have the votes for a successful Impeachment. Sorry it's not the result you wanted; God knows you're not alone in that. From this point on, all Trump haters can do is impotently flog a dead horse, sounding shriller, looking angrier while egg drips from their faces. Ain't Politics wonderful?

I think old EMM is in a world of his own making and far beyond any reasonable conversation.  The toll lives in Scotland andhasn't a clue about how America works and all his news is obviously from virulently leftist sources so the poor man is living in a fictional world.   Sad.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Merc14 said:

I think old EMM is in a world of his own making and far beyond any reasonable conversation.  The toll lives in Scotland andhasn't a clue about how America works and all his news is obviously from virulently leftist sources so the poor man is living in a fictional world.   Sad.

I don't mind him. Everyone should have a hobby. I chime on that BREXIT thing, from time to time. It was actually better for us with them in, than out.

Edited by Hammerclaw
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, ExpandMyMind said:

The Trump Tower meeting was criminal, according to Mueller, with the only reason for Jr not being indicted being that it would be hard to prove that Jr knew it was illegal. That's pretty damning, wouldn't you say? I seem to remember pretty much every Republican on here moaning about Hillary being let off for that exact reason. Have they all suddenly changed their minds?

So you agree Hillary Clinton should have been charged with Federal Document crimes? Regardless of her excuses?

Edit: I've maintained that if ignorance, a la Granny Clinton 2016, is the rule for getting off, then Don Jr 2016 should get off. If we now want to change that.... I'd throw Don Jr under the bus to see Granny do time in a Federal Prison. :lol:

Edited by DieChecker
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DieChecker said:

I'd throw Don Jr under the bus to see Granny do time in a Federal Prison. :lol:

Deal!

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

White House plans to fight House subpoena of former counsel Donald McGahn for testimony on Mueller report

Quote

The White House plans to fight a subpoena issued by the House Judiciary Committee for former White House counsel Donald McGahn to testify, according to people familiar with the matter, setting up another showdown in the aftermath of the special counsel report.

The Trump administration also plans to oppose other requests from House committees for the testimony of current and former aides about actions in the White House described in special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s report, according to two people familiar with internal thinking who, like others interviewed for this story, spoke of the plans on the condition of anonymity.

Checks and balances? We dont need no stinkin checks and balances :mellow:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A decent quick read

The Mueller Report Was My Tipping Point

Quote

Let’s start at the end of this story. This weekend, I read Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report twice, and realized that enough was enough—I needed to do something. I’ve worked on every Republican presidential transition team for the past 10 years and recently served as counsel to the Republican-led House Financial Services Committee. My permanent job is as a law professor at the George Mason University Antonin Scalia Law School, which is not political, but where my colleagues have held many prime spots in Republican administrations.

If you think calling for the impeachment of a sitting Republican president would constitute career suicide for someone like me, you may end up being right. But I did exactly that this weekend, tweeting that it’s time to begin impeachment proceedings.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, DieChecker said:

True. But not all of the obstruction accusations are orders. Or, at least there is room as to what constitutes an order. Comey implied a offhand(?) comment by Trump to be an order.

Enough of them are, however, orders, in addition to the Trump Tower letter and firing Comey, which were carried out by the man himself.

11 hours ago, DieChecker said:

But, your assuming a crime exists that is being ordered. Mueller wrote that the powers of the president, like you said, say there can be no such crime according to tradition

Directing someone to commit obstruction is itself obstruction. It's part of the same crime.

11 hours ago, DieChecker said:

Rubbish. Using the DOJ policy to say Mueller could not charge would mean the whole thing was a waste, and no one doing anything for the president could be charged. 

Not a waste. It was merely an investigation that collected evidence necessary for Congress to act. This is a result of changes in the Special Counsel's powers in response to both Watergate and the Starr report. The SC was hamstrung by both so that, with regards to the President, it's powers are limited to investigative and restricted with regards to prosecutorial actions.

11 hours ago, DieChecker said:

Regardless half the obstruction accusations were from before Trump was elected, so...

I'm not sure what you mean by this? How can Trump be accused of obstructing something that didn't yet exist? The accusations of obstruction, as far as I'm aware, all revolve around his Presidency.

11 hours ago, DieChecker said:

I have to admit I've not read the ultra far left's analysis of the Mueller Report, because they have an obvious strong bias and are trying to somehow justify their continuing passion for "getting" Trump.

It's not the 'ultra far left'. It's the generally accepted interpretation of the report.

Quote

Although Mueller declined to make a final determination regarding President Trump’s criminal liability, contrary to assertions from the administration, the investigation did not exonerate Trump.  Instead, the report identified multiple instances of what may be considered obstructive conduct by the President.  Citing limitations on its role as an arm of the Justice Department, the Special Counsel’s Office referred determination of the question of whether Trump obstructed justice to Congress.

Forbes

That's from the right-leaning Forbes. So, not really just the 'ultra far left' (what does that even mean? Are all left-leaning outlets ultra far left? Because they'd have to be).

11 hours ago, DieChecker said:

Myself, I was going off what Mueller wrote. Not what a bunch of self inflated talking heads think.

You're clearly not. No offence, but your opinion seems to be somewhat skewed here, when Mueller writes:

'The conclusion that Congress may apply the obstruction laws to the President' s corrupt exercise of the powers of office accords with our constitutional system of checks and balances and the principle that no person is above the law' 

in literally the sentence before

'Because we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment, we did not draw ultimate conclusions about the President' s conduct.' 

(Page 8).

That whole 'Constitutional defenses' paragraph wouldn't even have been included had it not been a referral to Congress. There would have been no need to explain that the President can be prosecuted for obstruction.

Edited by ExpandMyMind
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Hammerclaw said:

You seem to confuse inappropriate or ill-advised with criminal. Criminal can be prosecuted

No, actually, I don't. You see, 'inappropriate' is what fits the definition of 'collusion'. 'Criminal' fits the definition of 'conspiracy'.

They found lots of evidence of collusion, but not enough of those examples to warrant criminal charges, with the exception of the Trump Tower meeting which Jr got away with basically because he was too stupid to realise it was a crime (or rather, that using that defence would be effective enough).

7 hours ago, DieChecker said:

So you agree Hillary Clinton should have been charged with Federal Document crimes? Regardless of her excuses?

Are you now claiming that it was right that she wasn't? Personally I don't know enough about the situation to comment properly, and I really couldn't care less about a politician I've hated for a very long time (you always seem to think every liberal on here is a Hillary fan when I haven't even seen a single one).

But I'm not arguing that Trump Jr should have been charged. In fact, I agree with Mueller's conclusion and accept that he can not. 

Edited by ExpandMyMind
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, ExpandMyMind said:

Enough of them are, however, orders, in addition to the Trump Tower letter and firing Comey, which were carried out by the man himself.

Directing someone to commit obstruction is itself obstruction. It's part of the same crime.

Not a waste. It was merely an investigation that collected evidence necessary for Congress to act. This is a result of changes in the Special Counsel's powers in response to both Watergate and the Starr report. The SC was hamstrung by both so that, with regards to the President, it's powers are limited to investigative and restricted with regards to prosecutorial actions.

I'm not sure what you mean by this? How can Trump be accused of obstructing something that didn't yet exist? The accusations of obstruction, as far as I'm aware, all revolve around his Presidency.

It's not the 'ultra far left'. It's the generally accepted interpretation of the report.

Forbes

That's from the right-leaning Forbes. So, not really just the 'ultra far left' (what does that even mean? Are all left-leaning outlets ultra far left? Because they'd have to be).

You're clearly not. No offence, but your opinion seems to be somewhat skewed here, when Mueller writes:

'The conclusion that Congress may apply the obstruction laws to the President' s corrupt exercise of the powers of office accords with our constitutional system of checks and balances and the principle that no person is above the law' 

in literally the sentence before

'Because we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment, we did not draw ultimate conclusions about the President' s conduct.' 

(Page 8).

That whole 'Constitutional defenses' paragraph wouldn't even have been included had it not been a referral to Congress. There would have been no need to explain that the President can be prosecuted for obstruction.

Damn well done !

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, ExpandMyMind said:

.....You're clearly not. No offence, but your opinion seems to be somewhat skewed here, when Mueller writes:

'The conclusion that Congress may apply the obstruction laws to the President' s corrupt exercise of the powers of office accords with our constitutional system of checks and balances and the principle that no person is above the law' 

in literally the sentence before

'Because we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment, we did not draw ultimate conclusions about the President' s conduct.' 

.....

Hmm.. an interesting statement. Firstly, he seems to be simply citing what the law IS, as an academic point, rather than suggesting that President Trump had broken any laws .

Secondly, and FAR more interesting, is the Forbes comment... 

"...Although Mueller declined to make a final determination regarding President Trump’s criminal liability, contrary to assertions from the administration, the investigation did not exonerate Trump.  Instead, the report identified multiple instances of what may be considered obstructive conduct by the President.  Citing limitations on its role as an arm of the Justice Department, the Special Counsel’s Office referred determination of the question of whether Trump obstructed justice to Congress..."

In other words, the judgement as to whether the President committed obstruction is NOT a legal question, but a political one ? 

MOST interesting !

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

In other words, the judgement as to whether the President committed obstruction is NOT a legal question, but a political one ? 

That's what the process of impeachment (charging in the House then convicting a President in the Senate) is. It's political. The elected politicians have a Constitutional duty to fulfil their part of the 'checks and balances'. On paper the whole US system is actually one of the most robust and well-designed that I know of (probably because a large portion of the founding fathers were lawyers). Unfortunately, over the past decade Mitch McConnell has shown it to be severely lacking in many respects.

25 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

Hmm.. an interesting statement. Firstly, he seems to be simply citing what the law IS, as an academic point, rather than suggesting that President Trump had broken any laws .

Yes. I should clarify that 'President' in the first quote I provided doesn't necessarily mean Trump. It's a general reference to any President. But the inclusion of that whole paragraph is about as clear a statement as he could provide, within his remit, of his opinion on whether or not Trump meets the requirements of prosecution.

It's basically a hand-off to Congress.

Also, I read that Mueller was due to leave the DoJ very soon. If his appearance before the House comes afterwards, he may be free to provide his opinion once and for all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A related development:

Quote

President Trump on Tuesday said he doesn't want current and former White House aides to testify in front of Congress following the release of special counsel Robert Mueller’s report.

In an exclusive interview with The Washington Post, Trump said complying with further investigations was not necessary after the White House cooperated with Mueller’s investigation into Russia's interference in the 2016 presidential election and possible obstruction of justice by Trump.

“There is no reason to go any further, and especially in Congress where it’s very partisan — obviously very partisan,” Trump said.

The Hill

Here's the Article III from Nixon's impeachment:

Quote

failed without lawful cause or excuse to produce papers and things as directed by duly authorized subpoenas issued by the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives on April 11, 1974, May 15, 1974, May 30, 1974, and June 24, 1974, and willfully disobeyed such subpoenas

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Merc14 said:

I never took you for a brain dead leftist but maybe I need to change that opinion.

Hand to God, in 20 years of political discourse, I have met some truly brilliant, intelligent (far superior to myself) people from the left. But at some point, every single one of them eventually leaves me feeling the exact same way as you on this comment.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rod Rosenstein fired Director Comey based on this letter: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-39866767

James Comey in his book basically said he gave Hillary a free ride and charging her with nothing believing that she would be his Boss, which is also in that letter.

So when Trump said he would have fired Comey anyway, he had all the justification, yet it has become an "obstruction" rallying cry.

Remember, Rod Rosenstien fired James Comey, So no matter how you spin it is not obstruction.

Edited by South Alabam
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, South Alabam said:

Repeat after me: "I'm not a Federal prosecutor and no matter how many times I read the Mueller report, my beliefs aren't going to bring charges."

And when obstruction fails, what is stage 3 in the playbook?

The number of collusion believers has dropped steadily over time. Most people either got bored or distracted by something else. After the Mueller report, only a core group remains. Even the MSM has largely backed off, except for a select few who depend on this conspiracy for their careers. The wind has dropped from the sails and now the "Russia-gate" boat is sitting alone in an endless ocean with nowhere to go and no way to get there.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Dark_Grey said:

The number of collusion believers has dropped steadily over time. Most people either got bored or distracted by something else. After the Mueller report, only a core group remains. Even the MSM has largely backed off, except for a select few who depend on this conspiracy for their careers. The wind has dropped from the sails and now the "Russia-gate" boat is sitting alone in an endless ocean with nowhere to go and no way to get there.

Weird, I had changed my post and saved the edit before you re posted my quote, sorry about that.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, South Alabam said:

Rod Rosenstein fired Director Comey based on this letter: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-39866767

James Comey in his book basically said he gave Hillary a free ride and charging her with nothing believing that she would be his Boss, which is also in that letter.

So when Trump said he would have fired Comey anyway, he had all the justification, yet it has become an "obstruction" rallying cry.

Remember, Rod Rosenstien fired James Comey, So no matter how you spin it is not obstruction.

Rosenstein developed the case and recommended firing Comey, yes.  But I think that ultimately Trump did fire him.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ever wonder why we have so many British posters on this thread still feverishly trying to convince everyone that Donald Trump is guilty of...something (or anything)?

Hmm...well, evidence continues to surface that the entire plot which produced the Steele Dossier was hatched during meetings in London between former members of the FBI,  British intelligence, and FVEY member states.  This looks really, REALLY bad for the Brits and their vassals in Australia and New Zealand.

Think about it: the UK helped to orchestrate an attempted coup against the President of the United States.  In some circles, that would be interpreted as an act of war.

I can't imagine a more awkward setting for Trump's upcoming visit with the Queen...but I'm sure she will be trying her best to wear her "contrition face".

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, South Alabam said:

Rod Rosenstein fired Director Comey based on this letter: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-39866767

James Comey in his book basically said he gave Hillary a free ride and charging her with nothing believing that she would be his Boss, which is also in that letter.

So when Trump said he would have fired Comey anyway, he had all the justification, yet it has become an "obstruction" rallying cry.

Remember, Rod Rosenstien fired James Comey, So no matter how you spin it is not obstruction.

I haven't read that letter in its entirety in a long time, if ever, and am surprised at just how negative on and condemnatory of Comey.   Rosenstein and several former Atorneys General, including Holder, all condemened Comey completely for his handling of the Clinton email case and most said he must be removed from his position and replaced.  Anyone who reads that and still cries obstruction shouldn't be taken seriously and dismissed as a fool.

Edited by Merc14
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, hacktorp said:

Ever wonder why we have so many British posters on this thread still feverishly trying to convince everyone that Donald Trump is guilty of...something (or anything)?

Hmm...well, evidence continues to surface that the entire plot which produced the Steele Dossier was hatched during meetings in London between former members of the FBI,  British intelligence, and FVEY member states.  This looks really, REALLY bad for the Brits and their vassals in Australia and New Zealand.

Think about it: the UK helped to orchestrate an attempted coup against the President of the United States.  In some circles, that would be interpreted as an act of war.

I can't imagine a more awkward setting for Trump's upcoming visit with the Queen...but I'm sure she will be trying her best to wear her "contrition face".

What evidence is that? I don't believe I've read and/or seen any mention of this aspect anywhere. I'd be interested to see it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Robotic Jew said:

What evidence is that? I don't believe I've read and/or seen any mention of this aspect anywhere. I'd be interested to see it.

Seriously?  All I can say is stand by, you'll be hearing about it soon but t has been out there for a long time, just not covered by the MSM.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.