Trump's Russian Collusion

[cradleandshoot]

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/20 ... cials-who/ What a great time to be a lawyer in Washington DC. Endless court cases and appeals with boatloads of money to be made. Is it even legal for congress to do this? How do they enforce the fines? It sure will be a lot of fun watching this fiasco unfold.

[ggait]

Then please explain why Mueller punted the ball when he was on the goal line? None of Muellers actions make any sense. He was the lead dog for this entire investigation. He has to step up and fill in the blanks. He picked a pretty poor time to become all wishy washy about what his conclusions were or were not.

C&S -- respectfully, Mueller in no way punted or became wishy washy. Marine vets from Viet Nam don't do that. Here's what Mueller has done/said. Please please read pages 1 and 2 of Volume 2. It is explained there in full. It is very straightforward.

First, Mueller tells us that he believed he was constrained by the DOJ OLC opinion. Which means he was prohibited from indicting Trump, no matter what the evidence was.

Second, since he could not indict, Mueller believed it was unfair and inappropriate to state any conclusion on obstruction. Because to do so would accuse Trump without Trump having the ability to defend himself in court. Accordingly, Mueller says that "we determined not to apply an approach that could potentially result in a judgment that the President committed crimes." Again, no matter how overwhelming the evidence might be, Mueller believes he was prohibited from stating an obstruction conclusion. He didn't punt -- he was prohibited from going onto the football field.

Third, if Barr or Trump's lawyers thought Mueller was wrong in taking those positions, they could have instructed Mueller to tell us what his conclusions would be absent #1 and #2 above. They could give Mueller such an instruction today. Barr and Trump have not made any such request -- although they are perfectly within their rights to do so. And why won't they make such a request? One reason only -- because Mueller would say that (but for #1 and #2) Trump committed indictable OOJ.

Fourth, because of #1 and #2, Mueller says he is laying out and preserving the facts for one reason -- so those facts are available for use in potentially prosecuting Trump after he leaves office and no longer has immunity per the DOJ OLC opinion.

There's 800+ former federal prosecutors (including 47 former US Attorneys) who are telling us what Mueller is prohibited from doing. I personally know several of the people who are on that list. They are people whose government work involved prosecuting terrorists, drug dealers, mobsters, spies, inside traders and crooked politicians. They're not political hacks. They're not a bunch of far left commies. They're g-men and g-women.

And here's what they say: Trump would be indicted for OOJ if he wasn't a sitting president. And it isn't a close call at all.

Barr has an extremely different opinion of OOJ as a legal matter than Mueller. Almost no lawyers agree with Barr's legal theory. The overwhelming majority agree with Mueller's legal theory. It is really very clear if you just take the time and read the two pages cited above.

ggait, esq.

[6ftstick]

Then please explain why Mueller punted the ball when he was on the goal line? None of Muellers actions make any sense. He was the lead dog for this entire investigation. He has to step up and fill in the blanks. He picked a pretty poor time to become all wishy washy about what his conclusions were or were not.

C&S -- respectfully, Mueller in no way punted or became wishy washy. Marine vets from Viet Nam don't do that. Here's what Mueller has done/said. Please please read pages 1 and 2 of Volume 2. It is explained there in full. It is very straightforward.

First, Mueller tells us that he believed he was constrained by the DOJ OLC opinion. Which means he was prohibited from indicting Trump, no matter what the evidence was.

Second, since he could not indict, Mueller believed it was unfair and inappropriate to state any conclusion on obstruction. Because to do so would accuse Trump without Trump having the ability to defend himself in court. Accordingly, Mueller says that "we determined not to apply an approach that could potentially result in a judgment that the President committed crimes." Again, no matter how overwhelming the evidence might be, Mueller believes he was prohibited from stating an obstruction conclusion. He didn't punt -- he was prohibited from going onto the football field.

Third, if Barr or Trump's lawyers thought Mueller was wrong in taking those positions, they could have instructed Mueller to tell us what his conclusions would be absent #1 and #2 above. They could give Mueller such an instruction today. Barr and Trump have not made any such request -- although they are perfectly within their rights to do so. And why won't they make such a request? One reason only -- because Mueller would say that (but for #1 and #2) Trump committed indictable OOJ.

Fourth, because of #1 and #2, Mueller says he is laying out and preserving the facts for one reason -- so those facts are available for use in potentially prosecuting Trump after he leaves office and no longer has immunity per the DOJ OLC opinion.

There's 800+ former federal prosecutors (including 47 former US Attorneys) who are telling us what Mueller is prohibited from doing. I personally know several of the people who are on that list. They are people whose government work involved prosecuting terrorists, drug dealers, mobsters, spies, inside traders and crooked politicians. They're not political hacks. They're not a bunch of far left commies. They're g-men and g-women.

And here's what they say: Trump would be indicted for OOJ if he wasn't a sitting president. And it isn't a close call at all.

Barr has an extremely different opinion of OOJ as a legal matter than Mueller. Almost no lawyers agree with Barr's legal theory. The overwhelming majority agree with Mueller's legal theory. It is really very clear if you just take the time and read the two pages cited above.

ggait, esq.

Mueller presumes Trump guilty and says he can't "exonerate" him. So our system of justice is turned on its head, And your "G-men" and "G-women" also fail to believe in a presumption of innocence. Its just lip service. God save us from our justice department.

So when the Supreme Court overturned (9-0) Mueller's deputy Andrew Weismans prosecutorial overreach of Arthur Anderson and getting 80,000 people fired they couldn't have been good "G-men" and "G-women?"

Must be the FBI agents that"interrogated" Michael Flynn and said they didn't think he lied to them must not be real "g-men" either. And that they never informed him of the real purpose of their discussion in essence denying him his Miranda rights is real g-man stuff.

[MDlaxfan76]

r hero Liar in Chief:

@realDonaldTrump

I was NOT going to fire Bob Mueller, and did not fire Bob Mueller. In fact, he was allowed to finish his Report with unprecedented help from the Trump Administration. Actually, lawyer Don McGahn had a much better chance of being fired than Mueller. Never a big fan!

Not only did he avoid testimony under oath, he is calling McGanh a Liar and is PREVENTING McGhan from testifying in front of Congress.

Deplorable

Seriously, after 30 hours of testimony for Mueller Report that leaves "obstruction" ambiguous at best, why should he testify further?

"Former White House counsel Don McGahn is refusing to comply with a congressional subpoena for documents related to special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation, deferring to a last-minute instruction from the White House to disregard House Democrats' demands."

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/05/ ... na-1308802

Actually, tech37, it's now more than 800 former federal prosecutors who don't think it's 'ambiguous'. The number keeps going up and up, both R's and D's.

But your logic that McGahn met with the Mueller team for more than 30 hours, so now he shouldn't testify in front of Congress is quite specious. He's at the heart of the second volume (again, which 800 former fed prosecutors, both R's and D's say would be prosecuted). It's estimated that less than 3% of Americans have actually read the report (and clearly you haven't) so having him testify allows the American people at much larger scale to see him answer questions, assess his credibility, and listen to how Trump acted at various points in time. McGahn is a Republican, not a political enemy. First hand knowledge.

And, now we learn that Trump and co have twice more asked McGahn to publicly state that he didn't see Trump's actions as 'obstruction' and McGahn has again refused. So...what does he think is undoubtedly a question worth asking.

Would that not mean that all of these folks are interfering with an on going investigation? What does their 2 cents matter as opposed to the average joe/Jane? Opinions are like buttholes. Everyone has one and every one else's stinks.

Glib retort, without substance.

No, your initial question is flat dumb.
There's zero interference in the expression of an opinion, based upon professional judgment and experience.

These are folks, both R's and D's, who have actually made these sorts of prosecutorial judgments, and, based upon their actual reading of the Mueller Report, they are indicating that, given the facts presented in the Report they would prosecute (and thus expect to win) a case of obstruction of justice. But that's after Trump leaves office.

They have no authority, no power, other than the persuasion of their personal and collective credibility.

And, yeah, they have enormously more knowledge and insight into the law than knuckleheads with no such experience and who haven't even bothered to read the Report.

Do you remember the letter signed by all of those PhD scientists that don't agree with gw/cc? They also have enormous knowledge on the subject of gw/cc? I understand you are some kind of Republican that does not require you to keep your head stuck in the sand. Can you tell me what intimate knowledge ANY of these people have with the the investigation? I know you are a Republican but I am sure you understand what an opinion is.

They read the Report, cradle, as have I.

They are expressing their professional judgment, based upon the facts presented in the Report. They're saying that those facts support an obstruction charge(s). Hands down, they would prosecute. The standard for a prosecution is the professional, informed belief, based on facts and law, that a jury would be persuaded beyond a reasonable doubt of the guilt of the indicted party.

Mueller lays out a very clear case, both of facts and law, including several instances in which he found that the provable facts met all 3 elements necessary for successful prosecution.

He specifically notes that, based on the OLC, he chose not to prosecute given Trump's current status as POTUS, but he immediately notes that his intent is to preserve a record of the investigation's findings and that a President can be prosecuted after leaving office.

These 800+ former federal prosecutors have read the detailed recitation of the evidence and agree that in at least some instances (as Mueller does) all elements are met and a prosecution would be merited (as Mueller implies).

Obstruction of justice is not an area of the law that is outside the normal practice of a federal prosecutor (unlike a PhD of one area of science opining on an area outside their expertise). If this was say 800+ real estate lawyers opining, or perhaps 800+ insurance adjusters opining, sure you'd have an argument, but these are are all guys and gals who actually faced and prosecuted obstruction of justice. Both R's and D's.

https://apnews.com/d56d81530f1a4633ac9540187a806806 This entire matter could be put to bed if Mueller could tell the American people first hand what he found out. It has now been left to pundits on both sides trying to interpret this gobbledygook of a report. After 2 years plus of investigating Mueller hands the ball off to Barr and says you explain it Bill. There could be and probably are many of thousands of lawyers with opinions both pro and con about what the report actually says. If Mueller thinks there is more to be discovered... WHY DID HE NOT SAY SO? The only thing I gather is that Mueller suspects there was a lot of skullduggery but it just can't be proven. Surprise... surprise, the Republicans say case closed, the Democrats want to keep digging. That is how the game will now be played. In the meantime the Russians are laughing their fannies off watching us chase our tails. We can only wonder what shenanigans Vlad has planned for 2020. I still wonder how that dumb cluck Donnie being as stupid as everybody here says he is pulled off the crime of the century? He and Vlad stole the election and didn't even leave enough crumbs for Bob Mueller to find anything wrong. What we really needed was Lt. Columbo. He would have figured it out... I got just one more question for you Donnie.

Again, clearly you haven't read the Report. In both volumes, Mueller found a ton of things "wrong" that Trump and his cronies did. And he says so, in great detail, exactly why he does not prosecute many of those 'wrong' acts versus the many he did prosecute.

No, he did not ask Barr to 'explain it'. Not at all, indeed he was pissed when Barr misrepresented the Report.

Yes, we need to hear directly from Mueller.
Wonder why Trump is barring (pun intended) Mueller and McGahn from testifying?
It ain't because they'll 'exonerate' him.

[MDlaxfan76]

Then please explain why Mueller punted the ball when he was on the goal line? None of Muellers actions make any sense. He was the lead dog for this entire investigation. He has to step up and fill in the blanks. He picked a pretty poor time to become all wishy washy about what his conclusions were or were not.

C&S -- respectfully, Mueller in no way punted or became wishy washy. Marine vets from Viet Nam don't do that. Here's what Mueller has done/said. Please please read pages 1 and 2 of Volume 2. It is explained there in full. It is very straightforward.

First, Mueller tells us that he believed he was constrained by the DOJ OLC opinion. Which means he was prohibited from indicting Trump, no matter what the evidence was.

Second, since he could not indict, Mueller believed it was unfair and inappropriate to state any conclusion on obstruction. Because to do so would accuse Trump without Trump having the ability to defend himself in court. Accordingly, Mueller says that "we determined not to apply an approach that could potentially result in a judgment that the President committed crimes." Again, no matter how overwhelming the evidence might be, Mueller believes he was prohibited from stating an obstruction conclusion. He didn't punt -- he was prohibited from going onto the football field.

Third, if Barr or Trump's lawyers thought Mueller was wrong in taking those positions, they could have instructed Mueller to tell us what his conclusions would be absent #1 and #2 above. They could give Mueller such an instruction today. Barr and Trump have not made any such request -- although they are perfectly within their rights to do so. And why won't they make such a request? One reason only -- because Mueller would say that (but for #1 and #2) Trump committed indictable OOJ.

Fourth, because of #1 and #2, Mueller says he is laying out and preserving the facts for one reason -- so those facts are available for use in potentially prosecuting Trump after he leaves office and no longer has immunity per the DOJ OLC opinion.

There's 800+ former federal prosecutors (including 47 former US Attorneys) who are telling us what Mueller is prohibited from doing. I personally know several of the people who are on that list. They are people whose government work involved prosecuting terrorists, drug dealers, mobsters, spies, inside traders and crooked politicians. They're not political hacks. They're not a bunch of far left commies. They're g-men and g-women.

And here's what they say: Trump would be indicted for OOJ if he wasn't a sitting president. And it isn't a close call at all.

Barr has an extremely different opinion of OOJ as a legal matter than Mueller. Almost no lawyers agree with Barr's legal theory. The overwhelming majority agree with Mueller's legal theory. It is really very clear if you just take the time and read the two pages cited above.

ggait, esq.

Mueller presumes Trump guilty and says he can't "exonerate" him. So our system of justice is turned on its head, And your "G-men" and "G-women" also fail to believe in a presumption of innocence. Its just lip service. God save us from our justice department.

So when the Supreme Court overturned (9-0) Mueller's deputy Andrew Weismans prosecutorial overreach of Arthur Anderson and getting 80,000 people fired they couldn't have been good "G-men" and "G-women?"

Must be the FBI agents that"interrogated" Michael Flynn and said they didn't think he lied to them must not be real "g-men" either. And that they never informed him of the real purpose of their discussion in essence denying him his Miranda rights is real g-man stuff.

jiminy, 6ft, are you purposely being dense?
Mueller doesn't "presume" a darn thing. He investigated, found overwhelming evidence of obstruction, but is constrained from prosecuting a sitting President. So, he lays out the case for prosecutors once Trump leaves office.

He's equally clear that there's tons of evidence of contacts with Russians and all sorts of evidence of welcoming the Russian interference (which he lays out in great detail) and tons of evidence of lying about same, but he also explains that without more proof of the Trump folks' comprehension and intent he doesn't have 100% of elements necessary, in his opinion, to prosecute criminal conspiracy. Then he lays out in volume 2 all sorts of obstruction, much of which goes to why he didn't have the proof of comprehension and intent.

Look, you and I very likely both believe (I do) that HRC's scrubbing of her servers, destruction of her devices, was criminal. But it came down to the ability to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the intent behind those acts. So, no prosecution. Frustrating as all get out, but that's the consistent standard being applied.

[6ftstick]

r hero Liar in Chief:

@realDonaldTrump

I was NOT going to fire Bob Mueller, and did not fire Bob Mueller. In fact, he was allowed to finish his Report with unprecedented help from the Trump Administration. Actually, lawyer Don McGahn had a much better chance of being fired than Mueller. Never a big fan!

Not only did he avoid testimony under oath, he is calling McGanh a Liar and is PREVENTING McGhan from testifying in front of Congress.

Deplorable

https://apnews.com/d56d81530f1a4633ac9540187a806806 This entire matter could be put to bed if Mueller could tell the American people first hand what he found out. It has now been left to pundits on both sides trying to interpret this gobbledygook of a report. After 2 years plus of investigating Mueller hands the ball off to Barr and says you explain it Bill. There could be and probably are many of thousands of lawyers with opinions both pro and con about what the report actually says. If Mueller thinks there is more to be discovered... WHY DID HE NOT SAY SO? The only thing I gather is that Mueller suspects there was a lot of skullduggery but it just can't be proven. Surprise... surprise, the Republicans say case closed, the Democrats want to keep digging. That is how the game will now be played. In the meantime the Russians are laughing their fannies off watching us chase our tails. We can only wonder what shenanigans Vlad has planned for 2020. I still wonder how that dumb cluck Donnie being as stupid as everybody here says he is pulled off the crime of the century? He and Vlad stole the election and didn't even leave enough crumbs for Bob Mueller to find anything wrong. What we really needed was Lt. Columbo. He would have figured it out... I got just one more question for you Donnie.

What the heck are you talking about.Mueller filed a 448 page report but failed to tell us what he found out?

Liberals. SHEEESH!!!

[RedFromMI]

BTW, you too can read the report: https://www.justice.gov/storage/report.pdf

Great last line of the report (not including the appendices):

And the
protection of the criminal justice system from corrupt acts by any person-including the
President-accords with the fundamental principle of our government that "[n]o [person] in this
country is so high that he is above the law." United States v. Lee, I 06 U.S. 196, 220 (1882); see
also Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. at 697; United States v. Nixon, supra.

Note that last reference... This report is written exactly as a report to Congress with respect to potential impeachment...

[CU88]

BTW, you too can read the report: https://www.justice.gov/storage/report.pdf

Great last line of the report (not including the appendices):

And the
protection of the criminal justice system from corrupt acts by any person-including the
President-accords with the fundamental principle of our government that "[n]o [person] in this
country is so high that he is above the law." United States v. Lee, I 06 U.S. 196, 220 (1882); see
also Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. at 697; United States v. Nixon, supra.

Note that last reference... This report is written exactly as a report to Congress with respect to potential impeachment...

That speaks VOLUMES!

[MDlaxfan76]

Huh? That's not my comment. Not sure who made it, but it's flat dumb. Willfully ignorant.

r hero Liar in Chief:

@realDonaldTrump

I was NOT going to fire Bob Mueller, and did not fire Bob Mueller. In fact, he was allowed to finish his Report with unprecedented help from the Trump Administration. Actually, lawyer Don McGahn had a much better chance of being fired than Mueller. Never a big fan!

Not only did he avoid testimony under oath, he is calling McGanh a Liar and is PREVENTING McGhan from testifying in front of Congress.

Deplorable

https://apnews.com/d56d81530f1a4633ac9540187a806806 This entire matter could be put to bed if Mueller could tell the American people first hand what he found out. It has now been left to pundits on both sides trying to interpret this gobbledygook of a report. After 2 years plus of investigating Mueller hands the ball off to Barr and says you explain it Bill. There could be and probably are many of thousands of lawyers with opinions both pro and con about what the report actually says. If Mueller thinks there is more to be discovered... WHY DID HE NOT SAY SO? The only thing I gather is that Mueller suspects there was a lot of skullduggery but it just can't be proven. Surprise... surprise, the Republicans say case closed, the Democrats want to keep digging. That is how the game will now be played. In the meantime the Russians are laughing their fannies off watching us chase our tails. We can only wonder what shenanigans Vlad has planned for 2020. I still wonder how that dumb cluck Donnie being as stupid as everybody here says he is pulled off the crime of the century? He and Vlad stole the election and didn't even leave enough crumbs for Bob Mueller to find anything wrong. What we really needed was Lt. Columbo. He would have figured it out... I got just one more question for you Donnie.

What the heck are you talking about.Mueller filed a 448 page report but failed to tell us what he found out?

Liberals. SHEEESH!!!

[RedFromMI]

BTW, you too can read the report: https://www.justice.gov/storage/report.pdf

Great last line of the report (not including the appendices):

And the
protection of the criminal justice system from corrupt acts by any person-including the
President-accords with the fundamental principle of our government that "[n]o [person] in this
country is so high that he is above the law." United States v. Lee, I 06 U.S. 196, 220 (1882); see
also Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. at 697; United States v. Nixon, supra.

Note that last reference... This report is written exactly as a report to Congress with respect to potential impeachment...

That speaks VOLUMES!

Showed up in my early morning twitter stream...I thought a few of you might appreciate it...

[MDlaxfan76]

BTW, you too can read the report: https://www.justice.gov/storage/report.pdf

Great last line of the report (not including the appendices):

And the
protection of the criminal justice system from corrupt acts by any person-including the
President-accords with the fundamental principle of our government that "[n]o [person] in this
country is so high that he is above the law." United States v. Lee, I 06 U.S. 196, 220 (1882); see
also Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. at 697; United States v. Nixon, supra.

Note that last reference... This report is written exactly as a report to Congress with respect to potential impeachment...

That speaks VOLUMES!

Showed up in my early morning twitter stream...I thought a few of you might appreciate it...

Pretty darn clear why the Trumpists don't want Mueller to testify.

[old salt]

Mueller presumes Trump guilty and says he can't "exonerate" him. So our system of justice is turned on its head, And your "G-men" and "G-women" also fail to believe in a presumption of innocence. Its just lip service. God save us from our justice department.

So when the Supreme Court overturned (9-0) Mueller's deputy Andrew Weismans prosecutorial overreach of Arthur Anderson and getting 80,000 people fired they couldn't have been good "G-men" and "G-women?"

Must be the FBI agents that"interrogated" Michael Flynn and said they didn't think he lied to them must not be real "g-men" either. And that they never informed him of the real purpose of their discussion in essence denying him his Miranda rights is real g-man stuff.

This is why the (D)'s won't pull the trigger on impeachment for obstruction. It's like a prosecutor who would not bring a case for obstruction because he knows a jury would never convict. ...& we already know who this jury is & how they are inclined. Without proof of the underlying crime, there's no way enough of the public will support overturning an election, based on a tainted, politicized investigation of a non-crime.

It will take a remarkable performance by Mueller to generate enough public opinion to convince enough (R) Senators to abandon Trump.

Trump will play the victim of a vengeful Deep State, There's ample evidence to make the case that the investigation was baseless & conflicted.

Impeachment required a kill shot from Mueller. The gun jammed.
If the House proceeds with impeachment, they'll kill off their Blue Dog puppies in 2020.
Expect 18 mos of faux impeachment hearings & max resistance from the Trump Admin.

[dislaxxic]

Interesting theory OS...and that is, of course, all it is. You're welcome to your opinions.

More truth coming out about the conspiracy and the coverup will help cause the death, by a thousand cuts, to the guy (and the party) who deserves it big time. He committed fraud on the American electorate. They have aided and abetted the degradations and depredations perpetuated by this grifter's "administration.

Howz THAT for some opinions?

..

[njbill]

I am sure Trump has been advised that he may be indicted for obstruction of justice when he leaves office. I believe the statute of limitations on his OOJ crimes is five years so he likely thinks his reelection will be critical to his avoiding criminal liability. (I think there is a good argument any SOL is tolled while he remains in office given the DOJ’s legal opinion on indicting sitting presidents, but that is by no means a sure thing.)

I suspect some of the Ds running for president (e.g., Warren) would indict Trump on the afternoon of Jan. 20, 2021 if they won. Others (Biden?) might let him slide. But the possibility of OOJ indictments is a Sword of Damocles hanging over Trump’s head so he will do ANYTHING to win reelection. Hang on to your hats. It’s going to be a wild ride.

[OCanada]

Well OS theory doesn’t work. The evidence is perfectly clear. Remember the trial of his forger campaign manager where try he might a huge Trump supporter couldn’t acquit because it was so clear.

The jury will convict unless there is an I don’t care what the law says I want to support Trump like Mitch dies these days or Lindsay I Don’t Care Graham.

There are 12 referred investigations and additional state investigations underway. Trump has been mobbed up his entire life. Convicted of fraud. Had to pay 25 million in restitution. He is a totally corrupt individual.

With an election less than 18 or so months away and an AG who is owned by Trump I don’t see DOJ taking itvyo Court.

If Trump loses orcis out of office he knows his legal jeopardy. jeopardy. I am expecting the most tainted ejection in our history. The ground work is being done, theceelcome matbout out.

[youthathletics]

The plot thickens. Is turnabout fair play?

~ Mueller report proves that it's time to investigate the investigators

~ Marco Rubio calls on Barr to investigate John Kerry

~ Barr Assigns U.S. Attorney in Connecticut to Review Origins of Russia Inquiry

WASHINGTON — Attorney General William P. Barr has assigned the top federal prosecutor in Connecticut to examine the origins of the Russia investigation, according to two people familiar with the matter, a move that President Trump has long called for but that could anger law enforcement officials who insist that scrutiny of the Trump campaign was lawful.

John H. Durham, the United States attorney in Connecticut, has a history of serving as a special prosecutor investigating potential wrongdoing among national security officials, including the F.B.I.’s ties to a crime boss in Boston and accusations of C.I.A. abuses of detainees.

His inquiry is the third known investigation focused on the opening of an F.B.I. counterintelligence investigation during the 2016 presidential campaign into possible ties between Russia’s election interference and Trump associates.

The department’s inspector general, Michael E. Horowitz, is separately examining investigators’ use of wiretap applications and informants and whether any political bias against Mr. Trump influenced investigative decisions. And John W. Huber, the United States attorney in Utah, has been reviewing aspects of the Russia investigation. His findings have not been announced.

[dislaxxic]

The plot thickens only in the minds of Trumpists that are desperate to divert attention from the dumpster fire that is this DOPUS.

I can hardly wait for the next (D) president that gets accused of something by his enemies...and launches a wide-ranging attack and purge of the law enforcement and investigative entities that attempt to sort out the matter. It's gratifying to know that good conservatives everywhere will support the continued degradation and vilification of all that is BAD with our law enforcement entities.

This new Barr antic deserves its own thread, you know, something that fits...like "Frivolous Investigations Meant to Obscure Authoritarian Impulses"...you know, the conservative political staple.

..

[6ftstick]

The plot thickens only in the minds of Trumpists that are desperate to divert attention from the dumpster fire that is this DOPUS.

I can hardly wait for the next (D) president that gets accused of something by his enemies...and launches a wide-ranging attack and purge of the law enforcement and investigative entities that attempt to sort out the matter. It's gratifying to know that good conservatives everywhere will support the continued degradation and vilification of all that is BAD with our law enforcement entities.

This new Barr antic deserves its own thread, you know, something that fits...like "Frivolous Investigations Meant to Obscure Authoritarian Impulses"...you know, the conservative political staple.

..

He says while peeking out from under his bed!

[LandM]

It is early in Colorado........but I think I have seen Diss, Brooklyn, CU88, and Mr. Murph's heads fly by. Could be a fun day here.

On a serious note, to ggait, how many federal prosecutors are there?

So far you got two old men verse a corrupt businessman......are we not better then this?

[CU88]

It is early in Colorado........but I think I have seen Diss, Brooklyn, CU88, and Mr. Murph's heads fly by. Could be a fun day here.

On a serious note, to ggait, how many federal prosecutors are there?

So far you got two old men verse a corrupt businessman......are we not better then this?

Me thinks that you need to leave the Cannabis dispensary and go home to sleep it off.