its probably best if we just move forward on this one and call this the end. not sure if that will happen.
either way- i dont need an independent investigation to confirm that DJ Trump is a criminal. so i havent paid any attention.
Trump's Russian Collusion
-
ChairmanOfTheBoard
- Posts: 967
- Joined: Tue Jan 30, 2018 8:40 pm
- Location: Having a beer with CWBJ in Helsinki, Finland
Re: The Mueller Investigation
There are 29,413,039 corporations in America; but only one Chairman of the Board.
Re: The Mueller Investigation
Well considering what Barr has written and said in the past regarding presidents being unable to be charged with obstruction of justice, and considering Barr didn't even consult Mueller when writing his summary, there are a ton of questions.
There's no reason we shouldn't have the full report made public. Trump even said so.
-
youthathletics
- Posts: 15111
- Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2018 7:36 pm
Re: The Mueller Investigation
Makes sense why Seasions was let go. It would have created an S storm of chaos with the Mueller report hitting the DOJ with someone recused of the investigation.
A fraudulent intent, however carefully concealed at the outset, will generally, in the end, betray itself.
~Livy
~Livy
Re: The Mueller Investigation
Trump and co. lied at every turn. Hell, a respected General lied about meeting with Russians. You guys (and by you guys, I mean Republicans) are acting like it was INSANE to think our government should look into this stuff.youthathletics wrote: ↑Sun Mar 24, 2019 7:04 pm Don’t you find it the least bit odd that leaders of high position under the BHO admin all fell in line with the Russia Collusion theory in an almost lockstep fashion. It was then perpetuated by the fourth estate with speculation and innuendo to try and take down an elected president before any findings.
If Trump was a full grown adult, no lying would have occurred, Trump wouldn't have fired Comey.....and the FBI would have been allowed to find nothing, and this would have all been over months ago.
But nope. That's not how Trump rolls. So here we are.
And all of you are acting like it was a conspiracy to hurt Trump. Question: did this whole episode help or harm Trump?
Help. Clearly. While Maddow, Hannity, and the rest of Tinfoil Hat Nation (that's trademarked), were they paying attention to, you know, what Trump was actually doing while in office. Anyone notice that government is bigger than ever? Or that our trade deficit with China is the worst it's ever been?
Nope. You were all electrified with this stupid stuff.
Trump won. Sticking it to the 99%, while funneling $Trillions to the 1%. He wins. You lose. Same for both Houses of Congress, actually. No one is watching what they're doing.
Who cares, right? So long as Trump/Hill are throw in jail----like that's going to happen----- things like "hey, can my gradma pay for her insulin?" are irrelevant, right?
Trump is at 90% approval folks. His base LOVED this whole us vs. them thing. They are now getting to "stick it to the libs" at dinner parties, and that's all that matters in 2019.
"Immigration reform? Oh yeah, they didn't even put a bill down for debate.....but hey, did you hear that Trump didn't collude? Oh, those libs have mud on their face!!"
As I keep saying: we're doing this to ourselves.
-
youthathletics
- Posts: 15111
- Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2018 7:36 pm
Re: The Mueller Investigation
Your last sentence could not be any more true afan.
A fraudulent intent, however carefully concealed at the outset, will generally, in the end, betray itself.
~Livy
~Livy
Re: The Mueller Investigation
Ah, so you learned nothing from the libs, and plan on borrowing their tinfoil hats, and soldiering on, eh?6ftstick wrote: ↑Sun Mar 24, 2019 6:53 pm And it was all just that innocent. Comey was fired for LEAKING classified information to jump start a special counsel investigation. The letter recommending his firing and outlining the rational was written by Rosenstein.
When Flynn was initially interviewed no one told hm it was an investigation. Like not reading you your Miranda rights.
There was NEVER any evidence of collusion. That fact was expressed in congressional testimony from multiple witnesses long before this report.
All the FISA warrants were based on the Dossier PAID FOR BY THE CLINTONS. Never verified. Facts surrounding the dossier and who created it were hidden from FISA court judges. Shall we go over the list of justice department and FBI folks fired.
Yeh this was just routine like you say.
Well, I'm sure Hillary and the entire FBI will be in chains in no time!
Best of luck!
-
youthathletics
- Posts: 15111
- Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2018 7:36 pm
Re: The Mueller Investigation
Chris Matthews trying sanity, maybe it will work. https://twitter.com/hardballchris/statu ... 91720?s=21
A fraudulent intent, however carefully concealed at the outset, will generally, in the end, betray itself.
~Livy
~Livy
Re: The Mueller Investigation
HOW WILLIAM BARR DID OLD MAN BACK-FLIPS TO AVOID ARRESTING DONALD TRUMP
Barr's "crib notes" raise more questions than they answer.
..
Barr's "crib notes" raise more questions than they answer.
..
"The purpose of writing is to inflate weak ideas, obscure poor reasoning, and inhibit clarity. With a little practice, writing can be an intimidating and impenetrable fog." - Calvin, to Hobbes
Re: The Mueller Investigation
Trump may have done impeachment-worthy things, but not prosecution related things.
Probably needs to be a trial to decide.
..
Probably needs to be a trial to decide.
..
"The purpose of writing is to inflate weak ideas, obscure poor reasoning, and inhibit clarity. With a little practice, writing can be an intimidating and impenetrable fog." - Calvin, to Hobbes
Re: The Mueller Investigation
Wouldn't it be nice if this became "the new black"?youthathletics wrote: ↑Sun Mar 24, 2019 9:03 pm Chris Matthews trying sanity, maybe it will work. https://twitter.com/hardballchris/statu ... 91720?s=21
Re: The Mueller Investigation
Just this week the former head of the CIA said Trump acted treasonously. Something he's been saying for two years.a fan wrote: ↑Sun Mar 24, 2019 8:37 pmAh, so you learned nothing from the libs, and plan on borrowing their tinfoil hats, and soldiering on, eh?6ftstick wrote: ↑Sun Mar 24, 2019 6:53 pm And it was all just that innocent. Comey was fired for LEAKING classified information to jump start a special counsel investigation. The letter recommending his firing and outlining the rational was written by Rosenstein.
When Flynn was initially interviewed no one told hm it was an investigation. Like not reading you your Miranda rights.
There was NEVER any evidence of collusion. That fact was expressed in congressional testimony from multiple witnesses long before this report.
All the FISA warrants were based on the Dossier PAID FOR BY THE CLINTONS. Never verified. Facts surrounding the dossier and who created it were hidden from FISA court judges. Shall we go over the list of justice department and FBI folks fired.
Yeh this was just routine like you say.
Well, I'm sure Hillary and the entire FBI will be in chains in no time!
Best of luck!
Former #2 at the FBI McCabe said he still thought the President was a Russian asset.
Pelosi called Trump a Russian agent.
ALL with—as Mueller said in his report—"NO EVIDENCE of collusion or collaboration with Trump his staff or any American."
Thats the number 3 in succession to the presidency, the head of our intelligence services and the top ranking officer of the FBI. These weren't bit players.
You don't think any of that was divisive.
None of that intervened in any with government operations, negotiations with say NK, relationships with our allies or trade talks with China.
You're the loudest complainer that republicans haven't done any of a half dozen things—why would anyone support Trump when he was a Russian agent was going too be impeached and sent to jail.
Re: The Mueller Investigation
Barr is a liar. Why should anyone believe a liar. His written statement on Friday said he would produce this summary in conjunction with Bob Mueller. Mueller had nothing to do with producing the summary. Until the full report is released you will not convince 55-60% of the population. The Barr summary isn't worth its weight in elephant turd.
Re: The Mueller Investigation
Wait, I thought Cohen was the liar?
Answer - Only if it fits your narrative.jhu72 wrote: ↑ Why should anyone believe a liar.
If we need that extra push over the cliff, ya know what we do...eleven, exactly.
Re: The Mueller Investigation
I would ask from Barr the same being asked of Cohen. Let's see some corroborating evidence. The unredacted Mueller report will do nicely.
Re: The Mueller Investigation
Liar?...unreal
...except he's working with Mueller quotes from Mueller's report.https://www.vox.com/2019/3/24/18279973/ ... arr-letter
2 years, 19 lawyers (mostly democrats), numerous FBI agents, and the venerable "Bobby Three Sticks" ... works for me
Last edited by tech37 on Mon Mar 25, 2019 6:52 am, edited 2 times in total.
-
seacoaster
- Posts: 8866
- Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2018 4:36 pm
Re: The Mueller Investigation
On the Barr Letter:
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/24/opin ... e=Homepage
"On Sunday afternoon, soon after Attorney General Bill Barr released a letter outlining the Mueller investigation report, President Trump tweeted “Total EXONERATION!” But there are any number of reasons the president should not be taking a victory lap.
First, obviously, he still faces the New York investigations into campaign finance violations by the Trump team and the various investigations into the Trump organization. And Mr. Barr, in his letter, acknowledges that the Mueller report “does not exonerate” Mr. Trump on the issue of obstruction, even if it does not recommend an indictment.
But the critical part of the letter is that it now creates a whole new mess. After laying out the scope of the investigation and noting that Mr. Mueller’s report does not offer any legal recommendations, Mr. Barr declares that it therefore “leaves it to the attorney general to decide whether the conduct described in the report constitutes a crime.” He then concludes the president did not obstruct justice when he fired the F.B.I. director, James Comey.
Such a conclusion would be momentous in any event. But to do so within 48 hours of receiving the report (which pointedly did not reach that conclusion) should be deeply concerning to every American.
The special counsel regulations were written to provide the public with confidence that justice was done. It is impossible for the public to reach that determination without knowing two things. First, what did the Mueller report conclude, and what was the evidence on obstruction of justice? And second, how could Mr. Barr have reached his conclusion so quickly?
Mr. Barr’s letter raises far more questions than it answers, both on the facts and the law.
His letter says Mr. Mueller set “out evidence on both sides of the question and leaves unresolved what the special counsel views as ‘difficult issues’ of law and fact concerning whether the president’s actions and intent could be viewed as obstruction.” Yet we don’t know what those “difficult issues” were, because Mr. Barr doesn’t say, or why Mr. Mueller, after deciding not to charge on conspiracy, let Mr. Barr make the decision on obstruction.
On the facts, Mr. Barr says that the government would need to prove that Mr. Trump acted with “corrupt intent” and there were no such actions. But how would Mr. Barr know? Did he even attempt to interview Mr. Trump about his intentions?
...
The opening lines of the obstruction section of Mr. Barr’s letter are even more concerning. It says that the special counsel investigated “a number of actions by the president — most of which have been the subject of public reporting.” That suggests that at least some of the foundation for an obstruction of justice charge has not yet been made public. There will be no way to have confidence in such a quick judgment about previously unreported actions without knowing what those actions were.
On the law, Mr. Barr’s letter also obliquely suggests that he consulted with the Office of Legal Counsel, the elite Justice Department office that interprets federal statutes. This raises the serious question of whether Mr. Barr’s decision on Sunday was based on the bizarre legal views that he set out in an unsolicited 19-page memo last year.
That memo made the argument that the obstruction of justice statute does not apply to the president because the text of the statute doesn’t specifically mention the president. Of course, the murder statute doesn’t mention the president either, but no one thinks the president can’t commit murder. Indeed, the Office of Legal Counsel had previously concluded that such an argument to interpret another criminal statute, the bribery law, was wrong.
As such, Mr. Barr’s reference to the office raises the question of whether he tried to enshrine his idiosyncratic view into the law and bar Mr. Trump’s prosecution. His unsolicited memo should be understood for what it is, a badly argued attempt to put presidents above the law. If he used that legal fiction to let President Trump off the hook, Congress would have to begin an impeachment investigation to vindicate the rule of law.
Sometimes momentous government action leaves everyone uncertain about the next move. This is not one of those times. Congress now has a clear path of action. It must first demand the release of the Mueller report, so that Americans can see the evidence for themselves. Then, it must call Mr. Barr and Mr. Mueller to testify. Mr. Barr in particular must explain his rationale for reaching the obstruction judgment he made.
No one wants a president to be guilty of obstruction of justice. The only thing worse than that is a guilty president who goes without punishment. The Barr letter raises the specter that we are living in such times."
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/24/opin ... e=Homepage
"On Sunday afternoon, soon after Attorney General Bill Barr released a letter outlining the Mueller investigation report, President Trump tweeted “Total EXONERATION!” But there are any number of reasons the president should not be taking a victory lap.
First, obviously, he still faces the New York investigations into campaign finance violations by the Trump team and the various investigations into the Trump organization. And Mr. Barr, in his letter, acknowledges that the Mueller report “does not exonerate” Mr. Trump on the issue of obstruction, even if it does not recommend an indictment.
But the critical part of the letter is that it now creates a whole new mess. After laying out the scope of the investigation and noting that Mr. Mueller’s report does not offer any legal recommendations, Mr. Barr declares that it therefore “leaves it to the attorney general to decide whether the conduct described in the report constitutes a crime.” He then concludes the president did not obstruct justice when he fired the F.B.I. director, James Comey.
Such a conclusion would be momentous in any event. But to do so within 48 hours of receiving the report (which pointedly did not reach that conclusion) should be deeply concerning to every American.
The special counsel regulations were written to provide the public with confidence that justice was done. It is impossible for the public to reach that determination without knowing two things. First, what did the Mueller report conclude, and what was the evidence on obstruction of justice? And second, how could Mr. Barr have reached his conclusion so quickly?
Mr. Barr’s letter raises far more questions than it answers, both on the facts and the law.
His letter says Mr. Mueller set “out evidence on both sides of the question and leaves unresolved what the special counsel views as ‘difficult issues’ of law and fact concerning whether the president’s actions and intent could be viewed as obstruction.” Yet we don’t know what those “difficult issues” were, because Mr. Barr doesn’t say, or why Mr. Mueller, after deciding not to charge on conspiracy, let Mr. Barr make the decision on obstruction.
On the facts, Mr. Barr says that the government would need to prove that Mr. Trump acted with “corrupt intent” and there were no such actions. But how would Mr. Barr know? Did he even attempt to interview Mr. Trump about his intentions?
...
The opening lines of the obstruction section of Mr. Barr’s letter are even more concerning. It says that the special counsel investigated “a number of actions by the president — most of which have been the subject of public reporting.” That suggests that at least some of the foundation for an obstruction of justice charge has not yet been made public. There will be no way to have confidence in such a quick judgment about previously unreported actions without knowing what those actions were.
On the law, Mr. Barr’s letter also obliquely suggests that he consulted with the Office of Legal Counsel, the elite Justice Department office that interprets federal statutes. This raises the serious question of whether Mr. Barr’s decision on Sunday was based on the bizarre legal views that he set out in an unsolicited 19-page memo last year.
That memo made the argument that the obstruction of justice statute does not apply to the president because the text of the statute doesn’t specifically mention the president. Of course, the murder statute doesn’t mention the president either, but no one thinks the president can’t commit murder. Indeed, the Office of Legal Counsel had previously concluded that such an argument to interpret another criminal statute, the bribery law, was wrong.
As such, Mr. Barr’s reference to the office raises the question of whether he tried to enshrine his idiosyncratic view into the law and bar Mr. Trump’s prosecution. His unsolicited memo should be understood for what it is, a badly argued attempt to put presidents above the law. If he used that legal fiction to let President Trump off the hook, Congress would have to begin an impeachment investigation to vindicate the rule of law.
Sometimes momentous government action leaves everyone uncertain about the next move. This is not one of those times. Congress now has a clear path of action. It must first demand the release of the Mueller report, so that Americans can see the evidence for themselves. Then, it must call Mr. Barr and Mr. Mueller to testify. Mr. Barr in particular must explain his rationale for reaching the obstruction judgment he made.
No one wants a president to be guilty of obstruction of justice. The only thing worse than that is a guilty president who goes without punishment. The Barr letter raises the specter that we are living in such times."
-
youthathletics
- Posts: 15111
- Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2018 7:36 pm
Re: The Mueller Investigation
Comey asking for forgiveness, asking why the coup did not work like BHO said it would ?
Some people have too much time on their hands, this image is quite funny.
Some people have too much time on their hands, this image is quite funny.
A fraudulent intent, however carefully concealed at the outset, will generally, in the end, betray itself.
~Livy
~Livy
Re: The Mueller Investigation
Coordination IS Collusion
"...during five key interactions pertaining to the question of a possible conspiracy between Trump’s associates and Russia, there was direct contact between someone the government has deemed an agent of Russia and the Trump campaign:
January 20, 2016, when Michael Cohen told Dmitry Peskov’s personal assistant that Trump would be willing to work with a GRU-tied broker and (soft and hard) sanctioned banks in pursuit of a $300 million Trump Tower deal in Russia.
June 9, 2016, when Don Jr, knowing that currying favor with Russia could mean $300 million to the family, took a meeting offering dirt on Hillary Clinton as “part of Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump.” At the end of the meeting, per the testimony of at least four attendees, Don Jr said they’d revisit Magnitsky sanctions if his dad won.
August 2, 2016, when Paul Manafort and Rick Gates had a clandestine meeting with Konstantin Kilimnik at which Trump’s campaign manager walked Kilimnik through highly detailed poll data and the two discussed a “peace” plan for Ukraine understood to amount to sanctions relief.
December 29, 2016, when (working on instructions relayed by KT McFarland, who was at Mar-a-Lago with Trump) Mike Flynn said something to Sergey Kislyak that led Putin not to respond to Obama’s election-related sanctions.
January 11, 2017, when Erik Prince, acting as a back channel for Trump, met with sanctioned sovereign wealth fund Russian Direct Investment Fund CEO Kirill Dmitriev.
That Peskov’s assistant (and whatever representative from Putin’s office that called Felix Sater the next day), Sergey Kislyak, and Kirill Dmitriev are agents of Russia is clear. With the indictment of Natalia Veselnitskaya in December, the government deemed her to be working as an agent of Russia during the same time period she pitched sanctions relief to Trump’s campaign. And while the government hasn’t proven it beyond quoting Rick Gates acknowledging he knew of Konstantin Kilimnik’s past with the GRU and FBI’s belief that he continues to have ties, the government certainly maintains that Kilimnik does have ties to Russian intelligence."
Bill Barr may well regret his quick decision to "exonerate" The Don". There's just TOO MUCH evidence out there in plain sight that belies his lies.
..
"...during five key interactions pertaining to the question of a possible conspiracy between Trump’s associates and Russia, there was direct contact between someone the government has deemed an agent of Russia and the Trump campaign:
January 20, 2016, when Michael Cohen told Dmitry Peskov’s personal assistant that Trump would be willing to work with a GRU-tied broker and (soft and hard) sanctioned banks in pursuit of a $300 million Trump Tower deal in Russia.
June 9, 2016, when Don Jr, knowing that currying favor with Russia could mean $300 million to the family, took a meeting offering dirt on Hillary Clinton as “part of Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump.” At the end of the meeting, per the testimony of at least four attendees, Don Jr said they’d revisit Magnitsky sanctions if his dad won.
August 2, 2016, when Paul Manafort and Rick Gates had a clandestine meeting with Konstantin Kilimnik at which Trump’s campaign manager walked Kilimnik through highly detailed poll data and the two discussed a “peace” plan for Ukraine understood to amount to sanctions relief.
December 29, 2016, when (working on instructions relayed by KT McFarland, who was at Mar-a-Lago with Trump) Mike Flynn said something to Sergey Kislyak that led Putin not to respond to Obama’s election-related sanctions.
January 11, 2017, when Erik Prince, acting as a back channel for Trump, met with sanctioned sovereign wealth fund Russian Direct Investment Fund CEO Kirill Dmitriev.
That Peskov’s assistant (and whatever representative from Putin’s office that called Felix Sater the next day), Sergey Kislyak, and Kirill Dmitriev are agents of Russia is clear. With the indictment of Natalia Veselnitskaya in December, the government deemed her to be working as an agent of Russia during the same time period she pitched sanctions relief to Trump’s campaign. And while the government hasn’t proven it beyond quoting Rick Gates acknowledging he knew of Konstantin Kilimnik’s past with the GRU and FBI’s belief that he continues to have ties, the government certainly maintains that Kilimnik does have ties to Russian intelligence."
Bill Barr may well regret his quick decision to "exonerate" The Don". There's just TOO MUCH evidence out there in plain sight that belies his lies.
..
"The purpose of writing is to inflate weak ideas, obscure poor reasoning, and inhibit clarity. With a little practice, writing can be an intimidating and impenetrable fog." - Calvin, to Hobbes
Re: The Mueller Investigation
tech37 wrote: ↑Mon Mar 25, 2019 6:42 amLiar?...unreal
https://www.vox.com/2019/3/24/18279973/ ... arr-letter
2 years, 19 lawyers (mostly democrats), numerous FBI agents, and the venerable "Bobby Three Sticks" ... works for me
Barr is republican scum. This is the same guy that worked to convice Bush 1 to pardon all the Iran Contra (republican) scum. He lied in his statement on Friday; Mueller played no role in agreeing to what Barr said - consulting and agreeing with Barr's characterization. Until Mueller explains his decision and intent, the release of the unredacted report would do that nicely, only a fool will take Barr at his word. We are witnessing an attempted cover up as predicted.
As it stands, this will motivate the coalition of the decent to vote in 2020.
-
kramerica.inc
- Posts: 6251
- Joined: Sun Jul 29, 2018 9:01 pm
Re: The Mueller Investigation
The outrage from the left was predictable. Mueller's findings were a huge letdown. Probably moreso than the '16 election.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video ... helor.html
"Collusion is literally the only thing JHU and Dis have looked forward to for the past year."
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video ... helor.html
"Collusion is literally the only thing JHU and Dis have looked forward to for the past year."