The Mueller Report. BREAKING NEWS: AG’s Summary Report Released. NO COLLUSION!

[BeginnersMind]

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. 

[Foxx]

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.

[Bray Wyatt]

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

[Deranged Rhino]

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. 

[plenzmd1]

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?

[Deranged Rhino]

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. 

 

***************************************

 

 

[njbuff]

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.

[plenzmd1]

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..

[Deranged Rhino]

More on the Trump Tower meeting @plenzmd1

 

More to the thread if you click. 

[BeginnersMind]

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?  

[Deranged Rhino]

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.

 

[Foxx]

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.

[BeginnersMind]

 

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. 

[Deranged Rhino]

 

 

So many narratives biting the dust. 

[GG]

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.

 

 

[Bray Wyatt]

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.

[John from Riverside]

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.

[plenzmd1]

@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

[Deranged Rhino]

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. 

[John from Riverside]

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