plenzmd1 Posted April 18, 2019 Share Posted April 18, 2019 11 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: Thread This is interesting to me and i am engaged in other stuff and did not hear the PC. Is he saying Mueller thought there may have been obstruction? I am a little confused Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffalo_Gal Posted April 18, 2019 Share Posted April 18, 2019 Trump just said, "No collusion, no obstruction. There never was, there never will be. We have to get to the bottom of these things. This should never happen"... "this should never happen to another President again... this hoax should never happen again" That is what he just said at the Wounded Warriors speech, and now he's on to the speech. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted April 18, 2019 Share Posted April 18, 2019 Just now, plenzmd1 said: This is interesting to me and i am engaged in other stuff and did not hear the PC. Is he saying Mueller thought there may have been obstruction? I am a little confused Mueller's team (read: Weissman) laid out several legal theories to argue obstruction which Barr and RR disagreed with. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
plenzmd1 Posted April 18, 2019 Share Posted April 18, 2019 1 minute ago, Deranged Rhino said: Mueller's team (read: Weissman) laid out several legal theories to argue obstruction which Barr and RR disagreed with. Got it..thank you. Did he lay out what exactly? Or they gunna force me to read that whole damn thing LOL. I need cliff notes! @Deranged Rhino , get on it!!!! also have a feeling @DC Tom can break that thing down in minutes too! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted April 18, 2019 Share Posted April 18, 2019 Report: https://www.justice.gov/storage/report.pdf 1 minute ago, plenzmd1 said: Got it..thank you. Did he lay out what exactly? Or they gunna force me to read that whole damn thing LOL. I need cliff notes! @Deranged Rhino , get on it!!!! also have a feeling @DC Tom can break that thing down in minutes too! Just getting into it now... I'm skimming the conclusions/footnotes first. There aren't many redactions... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffalo_Gal Posted April 18, 2019 Share Posted April 18, 2019 2 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: Report: https://www.justice.gov/storage/report.pdf Just getting into it now... I'm skimming the conclusions/footnotes first. It is nonsearchable. {gasping for breath} ? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whatdrought Posted April 18, 2019 Share Posted April 18, 2019 Did the Mueller report find out how trump managed to steal the election through deployment of the electoral college? 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted April 18, 2019 Author Share Posted April 18, 2019 (edited) There are 10 points that could be considered to be obstruction. (According to what I heard) 1. Saying to Comey that he hopes he would go easy on Flynn 2. Firing Comey 3. Tweeting “Comey and WH recordings” 4. Tweeting “witch hunt” 5. Getting McCabe fired Anybody have more? Edited April 18, 2019 by Nanker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted April 18, 2019 Share Posted April 18, 2019 OOPS 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted April 18, 2019 Share Posted April 18, 2019 12 minutes ago, plenzmd1 said: Got it..thank you. Did he lay out what exactly? Or they gunna force me to read that whole damn thing LOL. I need cliff notes! @Deranged Rhino , get on it!!!! also have a feeling @DC Tom can break that thing down in minutes too! When I have minutes. I'm busy fighting off protesting Bernie Bros and stocky women in comfortable shoes and flannel "I'm with Her" shirts. 1 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted April 18, 2019 Author Share Posted April 18, 2019 When do the indictments start coming down? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted April 18, 2019 Share Posted April 18, 2019 1 minute ago, Nanker said: When do the indictments start coming down? After Horowitz's report - May/June (betting May) 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
plenzmd1 Posted April 18, 2019 Share Posted April 18, 2019 does this mean if the Russians delivered the info, there would be collusion? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted April 18, 2019 Share Posted April 18, 2019 1 minute ago, plenzmd1 said: does this mean if the Russians delivered the info, there would be collusion? This is Trump Tower - the Russian in question who met with Trump was granted an emergency visa by Obama's State Dept to make the meeting, and she met with Glenn Simpson before and after the meeting. In other words, it wasn't collusion. It was entrapment. By Fusion GPS and the Obama administration. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bray Wyatt Posted April 18, 2019 Share Posted April 18, 2019 6 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: This is Trump Tower - the Russian in question who met with Trump was granted an emergency visa by Obama's State Dept to make the meeting, and she met with Glenn Simpson before and after the meeting. In other words, it wasn't collusion. It was entrapment. By Fusion GPS and the Obama administration. The premise, per Trump Jr., was opposition research and that is what they thought the meeting was for. So even if the Russian had "delivered" that info, how would that be collusion? 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MILFHUNTER#518 Posted April 18, 2019 Share Posted April 18, 2019 Tibs is quite silent this morning... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted April 18, 2019 Share Posted April 18, 2019 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LB3 Posted April 18, 2019 Share Posted April 18, 2019 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RochesterRob Posted April 18, 2019 Share Posted April 18, 2019 4 minutes ago, MILFHUNTER#518 said: Tibs is quite silent this morning... Tis not a good day at the Soros Cubicle Farm. Tibs needs to slip off the restraints and ball gag first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted April 18, 2019 Share Posted April 18, 2019 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeginnersMind Posted April 18, 2019 Share Posted April 18, 2019 7 minutes ago, Bray Wyatt said: The premise, per Trump Jr., was opposition research and that is what they thought the meeting was for. So even if the Russian had "delivered" that info, how would that be collusion? The prime issue for Mueller on that meeting was whether there was willfulness to violate the law. He thought it was a very close call. Just clarifying that. There's nothing new there, but Mueller's conclusion is not exculpatory on that meeting. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foxx Posted April 18, 2019 Share Posted April 18, 2019 i don't understand the 'intent' narrative, just as i didn't understand it with Hillary. ignorance of the law is/should be moot. you either broke the law or you didn't. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bray Wyatt Posted April 18, 2019 Share Posted April 18, 2019 1 minute ago, BeginnersMind said: The prime issue for Mueller on that meeting was whether there was willfulness to violate the law. He thought it was a very close call. Just clarifying that. There's nothing new there, but Mueller's conclusion is not exculpatory on that meeting. How is opposition research violating the law? Just now, Foxx said: i don't understand the 'intent' narrative, just as i didn't understand it with Hillary. ignorance of the law is/should be moot. you either broke the law or you didn't. Agreed 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted April 18, 2019 Share Posted April 18, 2019 Mueller confirms tinkle tape never existed... (page 27/28). yet another bullet in the head of the long dead/debunked Steele Dossier. Just now, Bray Wyatt said: How is opposition research violating the law? He's stretching the truth (again) to fit his narrative. The Trump Tower meeting was in no way illegal on the part of Trump Jr or the campaign. Even if they had dirt on Hillary. What was illegal, was the entrapment. That's coming next. 3 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
plenzmd1 Posted April 18, 2019 Share Posted April 18, 2019 26 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: This is Trump Tower - the Russian in question who met with Trump was granted an emergency visa by Obama's State Dept to make the meeting, and she met with Glenn Simpson before and after the meeting. In other words, it wasn't collusion. It was entrapment. By Fusion GPS and the Obama administration. maybe not the right thread, but I can find evidence linking that meeting to this visa. She did have 3 other "pardons" and she did testify in another trial on the trip when the Trump Tower meeting took place. So you have to prove to me with some evidence that she was granted this "pardon" for this "entrapment" meeting. 6 minutes ago, Foxx said: i don't understand the 'intent' narrative, just as i didn't understand it with Hillary. ignorance of the law is/should be moot. you either broke the law or you didn't. I generally agree in one sense..if you break the law but had no intent to do so, you still broke the law. However, if i intend to hack a computer, but just cant get in, it is still breaking the law no? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted April 18, 2019 Share Posted April 18, 2019 Just now, plenzmd1 said: maybe not the right thread, but I can find evidence linking that meeting to this visa. She did have 3 other "pardons" and she did testify in another trial on the trip when the Trump Tower meeting took place. So you have to prove to me with some evidence that she was granted this "pardon" for this "entrapment" meeting. https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/341788-exclusive-doj-let-russian-lawyer-into-us-before-she-met-with-trump https://www.reuters.com/article/legal-us-otc-veselnitskaya/how-did-russian-lawyer-veselnitskaya-get-into-u-s-for-trump-tower-meeting-idUSKBN1D62Q2 The other matters she was meeting on were also tied to Fusion GPS. It was always a coup. *************************************** 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
njbuff Posted April 18, 2019 Share Posted April 18, 2019 The stupid Democrats can no longer stonewall. They are in deep doo doo, starting with the very top of the crooked Obama administration. The Dems can no longer hide their bad actions. Any American with a brain knows who the REAL colluders are. 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
plenzmd1 Posted April 18, 2019 Share Posted April 18, 2019 5 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/341788-exclusive-doj-let-russian-lawyer-into-us-before-she-met-with-trump https://www.reuters.com/article/legal-us-otc-veselnitskaya/how-did-russian-lawyer-veselnitskaya-get-into-u-s-for-trump-tower-meeting-idUSKBN1D62Q2 The other matters she was meeting on were also tied to Fusion GPS. It was always a coup. unless I am missing it, that says nothing about a link to a Trump meeting and her ability to be in the country starting in June ..and she had been granted parole 3 other times, and had that Prevezon trial stuff too.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted April 18, 2019 Share Posted April 18, 2019 More on the Trump Tower meeting @plenzmd1 More to the thread if you click. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeginnersMind Posted April 18, 2019 Share Posted April 18, 2019 10 minutes ago, Bray Wyatt said: How is opposition research violating the law? The law: Quote 52 U.S. Code § 30121 - Contributions and donations by foreign nationals (a)Prohibition It shall be unlawful for—(1)a foreign national, directly or indirectly, to make—(A) a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State, or local election; (B) a contribution or donation to a committee of a political party; or (C) an expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering communication(within the meaning of section 30104(f)(3) of this title); or (2) a person to solicit, accept, or receive a contribution or donation described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (1) from a foreign national. That he was doing "opposition research" wouldn't matter. And apparently there's a willfulness element of this that the people in the meeting did not meet, in Barr's eyes, but Mueller saw this question as quite close. DR is talking nonsense about me stretching the truth. In fact, all I've done is note what Mueller said and what the law is. Nice to see Rod Rosenstein get a shout out from Barr today for his great work, eh guys? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted April 18, 2019 Share Posted April 18, 2019 3 minutes ago, plenzmd1 said: unless I am missing it, that says nothing about a link to a Trump meeting and her ability to be in the country starting in June ..and she had been granted parole 3 other times, and had that Prevezon trial stuff too.. I would suggest you dig into Prevezon, its connection to the Obama administration and Fusion GPS. Then it'll click. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foxx Posted April 18, 2019 Share Posted April 18, 2019 14 minutes ago, plenzmd1 said: ... I generally agree in one sense..if you break the law but had no intent to do so, you still broke the law. However, if i intend to hack a computer, but just cant get in, it is still breaking the law no? it might possibly be a thought crime but an actual to goodness real crime, no. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeginnersMind Posted April 18, 2019 Share Posted April 18, 2019 Another interesting piece. The preface to the obstruction section notes at the outset that they would not recommend whether to prosecute or not because of the office of legal counsel memo that said that a president cannot be prosecuted while president. Thus Mueller decided not to evaluate the president’s conduct under the rubric of whether he committed any crimes because that could result in a judgment that the president committed crimes. And he did not consider making a sealed indictment because that could be leaked resulting in the president having to defend himself while president. So basically he acted simply to preserve evidence so that others later when Trump was out of office could decide. In this case, Barr intervened. It's a curious framing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted April 18, 2019 Share Posted April 18, 2019 So many narratives biting the dust. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted April 18, 2019 Share Posted April 18, 2019 5 minutes ago, plenzmd1 said: unless I am missing it, that says nothing about a link to a Trump meeting and her ability to be in the country starting in June ..and she had been granted parole 3 other times, and had that Prevezon trial stuff too.. Quote Bharara’s office has recommended immigration paroles for Veselnitskaya on three occasions, when her client, Katsyv, was being deposed in the U.S. in the Prevezon case. But in March 2016, Bharara’s office said no. In a letter to Prevezon’s U.S. lawyers, prosecutors said such paroles aren’t appropriate for foreign lawyers asking to help U.S. counsel prepare for appellate arguments or to attend appellate proceedings. “Since neither Katsyv nor Veselnitskaya are required to appear as witnesses in person at this stage of proceedings, we do not believe that immigration parole is appropriate,” the since-fired U.S. attorney wrote. Nevertheless, three months later, Veselnitskaya not only attended oral arguments in the Prevezon case but also traveled uptown to meet with Trump campaign officials. Veselnitskaya obtained a visa from the State Department to enter the country in June 2016, according to a government filing last week. The filing, which came in response to a new request by Veselnitskaya to be allowed into the U.S. for a Nov. 9 hearing in the now-settled Prevezon case, cited a Fox News report from last July. The Manhattan U.S. attorney’s office did not disclose in the filing whether it independently confirmed that the State Department issued a visa to Veselnitskaya to allow to her attend the 2nd Circuit argument in June 2016. The prosecutor leading the Prevezon case, assistant U.S. attorney Paul Monteleoni, referred me to a spokesman, who said the office could not supply additional public information on Veselnitskaya’s reported visa. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bray Wyatt Posted April 18, 2019 Share Posted April 18, 2019 7 minutes ago, BeginnersMind said: The law: That he was doing "opposition research" wouldn't matter. And apparently there's a willfulness element of this that the people in the meeting did not meet, in Barr's eyes, but Mueller saw this question as quite close. DR is talking nonsense about me stretching the truth. In fact, all I've done is note what Mueller said and what the law is. Nice to see Rod Rosenstein get a shout out from Barr today for his great work, eh guys? That is talking about donations/contributions, things of monetary value, not information. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John from Riverside Posted April 18, 2019 Share Posted April 18, 2019 Hi folks.....I will go back and read all this when I get off work.....but I did get to watch the Barr thing this morning VERY turned off by that.....is Barr the AG of the united states or Trumps personal lawyer.....because damn if that didnt sound like a closing statement of a lawyer defending his client. HE SHOULD have just issued the redacted and let it speak on its own merit....this is TWICE that Barr (hand picked by Trump) has given his pro Trump thoughts prior to the report coming out. I just want to read the report.....and make my own decisions on how I feel about it....I dont need any one (be that barr, pelosi, whoever) influencing it....I can think for myself. 1 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
plenzmd1 Posted April 18, 2019 Share Posted April 18, 2019 @GG, i am not debating the fact she received a visa ..but to state as @Deranged Rhino has that the Visa was issued strictly so she could be used to set up Trump is a far far leap. Correlation/causation/ coincidence type thing . Again, I may be missing it, but do we have any idea on why the visa was granted etc? Not sure if that type of stuff is ever made publically available Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted April 18, 2019 Share Posted April 18, 2019 2 minutes ago, John from Riverside said: Hi folks.....I will go back and read all this when I get off work.....but I did get to watch the Barr thing this morning VERY turned off by that.....is Barr the AG of the united states or Trumps personal lawyer.....because damn if that didnt sound like a closing statement of a lawyer defending his client. HE SHOULD have just issued the redacted and let it speak on its own merit....this is TWICE that Barr (hand picked by Trump) has given his pro Trump thoughts prior to the report coming out. I just want to read the report.....and make my own decisions on how I feel about it....I dont need any one (be that barr, pelosi, whoever) influencing it....I can think for myself. Nothing but love for you, John. But we need to have several long conversations down here. There's more coming out in the next weeks/months that will change this whole story. Just now, plenzmd1 said: @GG, i am not debating the fact she received a visa ..but to state as @Deranged Rhino has that the Visa was issued strictly so she could be used to set up Trump is a far far leap. Correlation/causation/ coincidence type thing . Again, I may be missing it, but do we have any idea on why the visa was granted etc? Not sure if that type of stuff is ever made publically available She was specifically given the visa at the SAME time that the DOJ was circling her as a Russian intelligence asset. At the same time the FBI was investigating Russian attacks on the election. Yet, despite the fact she was a known Russian intelligence asset - she was granted an 11th hour VISA to make three meetings - all connected to Fusion GPS. This is either evidence that they were setting up the entrapment - OR evidence of sheer incompetence on the part of the Obama administration and State Department. It's the former, not the latter. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John from Riverside Posted April 18, 2019 Share Posted April 18, 2019 1 minute ago, Deranged Rhino said: Nothing but love for you, John. But we need to have several long conversations down here. There's more coming out in the next weeks/months that will change this whole story. Welcome to see it....trying to keep an open mind. From my view right at this moment it looked to me like Barr (who already said you cannot indite a sitting president so WTF was he even allowed into this) is doing things that look....well.......iffy 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts