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

[Tiberius]

When Trump loses former New Jersey governor Chris Christie, that’s a problem.

Quote

“Those comments by Bob Mueller about the other processes — obviously impeachment being the only constitutional way — definitely contradicts what the Attorney General said when he summarized Mueller’s report and said he then had to draw the conclusion on that. Mueller clearly contradicts that today in a very concise way.” 

 

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

7 hours ago, transplantbillsfan said:

 (remember that it was the Comet firing and thus the obstructing justice that actually got this investigation going, NOT collusion)

 

Look at this nonsense.

 

LOOK at this nonsense. Are we seriously going to allow this kind of trash post here?

 

[Bray Wyatt]

9 minutes ago, Joe in Winslow said:

 

Look at this nonsense.

 

LOOK at this nonsense. Are we seriously going to allow this kind of trash post here?

 

 

Yeah I cant believe he actually believes that right? Has he been paying attention?

 

The fact that I have to ask that means I cant take anything he says on the subject seriously

[Tiberius]

2 hours ago, 4merper4mer said:

Russia got a Facebook page

It didn't do diddly

some british dude made up crap about peeing 

Hillary ran with it then lost then kept running with it

Mueller hired Andrew Weismann.  Huge red flag

Even Weismann found no collusion

Shakedowns ensue 

Trump got pissed and ranted about firing Mueller

His advisers tell him "bad idea" so he doesn't.

OBSTRUCTION!

 

 

Read the Mueller report. Or just listen to Mueller talk. You saying this was "only" Russian propaganda through facebook shows you have no clue about how a foreign power helped pick our President. 

 

 

[Buffalo_Gal]

4 hours ago, Doc Brown said:

I was about to mention they'll stall and wait for polling.  It definitely puts more pressure on Pelosi.

 

I wasn't following this that closely and didn't know Mueller actually cited a DOJ policy in his decision not to bring obstruction of justice charges.  I just thought be didn't have enough for a criminal prosecution and said it's up to you Congress.  After listening to him today it seems he strongly implies there is enough evidence to charge the president with obstruction.  

 

If I'm Pelosi I say there's no way the Senate kicks him out of office so let's not waste our time and focus on beating him in 2020.  Then he won't have the same protections he enjoys as president. 

In his report, and to Barr (who testified under oath that Mueller told him it was not a factor) he said no, that wasn't the reason (there was something of a discussion with RR). It was only when he gave his 9-minute speech did he say any such thing. Which then begs the question... if you couldn't indict a sitting president, why investigate him at all?  And why not indict those around President Trump? My gwad, Mueller recommended a Russian troll farm for prosecution! His team laid perjury traps for anyone and everyone. He was definitely not shy about recommending people for prosecution who had no connection to the "Russian Hoax". 

V2 was something outside anything a special counsel has ever done before. 

I'm not certain if you know who Alan Dershowitz is. If you do, you may want to read this article. Keep in mind that Dershowitz has always been (and still is) a loyal Democrat.

Edited May 30, 2019 by Buffalo_Gal

[4merper4mer]

21 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

Read the Mueller report. Or just listen to Mueller talk. You saying this was "only" Russian propaganda through facebook shows you have no clue about how a foreign power helped pick our President. 

 

 

What page discusses how votes were tampered with or swayed?  That would be interesting.  

 

Also, who won that arm wrestling match on Facebook?  

 

Also, what page discusses how Trump obstructed?  Since Mueller will never speak again, those details must be in there, right?

Edited May 30, 2019 by 4merper4mer

[Buffalo_Gal]

55 minutes ago, Joe in Winslow said:

 

Look at this nonsense.

 

LOOK at this nonsense. Are we seriously going to allow this kind of trash post here?

 

It's like the DNC paid trolls have been unleashed. ?‍♀️ 

Everyone has a right to their opinion.

Most of us have no idea what political maneuvering is going on behind the scenes. It is interesting that as soon as President Trump allowed for the declassification of all materials, Bob Mueller came out to stir the pot. I wonder why that happened? And, as the next OIG report comes due, Bob Mueller came out to stir the pot. I wonder why that happened? And, as Nancy Pelosi held a meeting with her flock to tell them "no impeachment", Bob Mueller came out to stir the pot. I wonder why that happened?

Maybe Bob Mueller came out, pissed off everyone right and left, for no reason at all? Maybe he came out to reinforce the ridiculous V2 so the Democrats would take up impeachment articles against President Trump? Maybe he walked out to handicap his "good friend"  William Barr? Maybe Bob Mueller is simply a bad prosecutor and doesn't know that our laws state "innocent until proven guilty" and not "guilty until you prove yourself innocent"?

All I know is I am getting pretty tired of #OrangeManBad and #GetTrump. The question is are other voters also tired of this political witch hunt? And what will happen in 2020? Because if they don't #GetTrump before the next election, maybe he'll have a "lot of political freedom" to further drain the swamp? 

Edited May 30, 2019 by Buffalo_Gal

[sabrecrazed]

46 minutes ago, Joe in Winslow said:

 

Look at this nonsense.

 

LOOK at this nonsense. Are we seriously going to allow this kind of trash post here?

 

He's an English literature teacher who refuses to read. He prefers to lecture and doesn't have time for conversation. He is done talking in new information as he already has it all. 

I'm sure his students don't even take him seriously. 

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

2 minutes ago, sabrecrazed said:

He's an English literature teacher who refuses to read. He prefers to lecture and doesn't have time for conversation. He is done talking in new information as he already has it all. 

I'm sure his students don't even take him seriously. 

 

I mean, he's in a basic denial of reality assuming of course he thinks that this had nothing to do with "Russian Collusion"

 

[Bray Wyatt]

2 minutes ago, sabrecrazed said:

He's an English literature teacher who refuses to read. He prefers to lecture and doesn't have time for conversation. He is done talking in new information as he already has it all. 

I'm sure his students don't even take him seriously. 

 

He also said he doesnt go above and beyond, so why should we expect him to do the same with this?

[SlimShady'sSpaceForce]

LOL  So Donald lied again did he...  

no big surprise there. 

 

William Barr sold a “false narrative” that special counsel Robert Mueller’s probe into Russian interference in the U.S. election and the Trump campaign were exonerated.  

 

 

Michael Goodwin: America left to face the nasty consequences of Robert Mueller’s actions

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/michael-goodwin-america-left-to-face-the-nasty-consequences-of-robert-muellers-actions

 

IF we thought there was No COLLUSION we would have said so directly.  

 

Edited May 30, 2019 by ShadyBillsFan

[4merper4mer]

1 hour ago, Tiberius said:

When Trump loses former New Jersey governor Chris Christie, that’s a problem.

 

He said that Mueller said one thing yesterday which is counter to how Barr characterized their discussions.  That is true.

 

Where does it say whether Christies aligns with Barr or Mueller.

 

Are Barr and Mueller still buddies?

 

 

[Buftex]

4 hours ago, Doc Brown said:

I was about to mention they'll stall and wait for polling.  It definitely puts more pressure on Pelosi.

 

I wasn't following this that closely and didn't know Mueller actually cited a DOJ policy in his decision not to bring obstruction of justice charges.  I just thought be didn't have enough for a criminal prosecution and said it's up to you Congress.  After listening to him today it seems he strongly implies there is enough evidence to charge the president with obstruction.  

 

If I'm Pelosi I say there's no way the Senate kicks him out of office so let's not waste our time and focus on beating him in 2020.  Then he won't have the same protections he enjoys as president. 

The only advantage to at least starting an impeachment hearing, is that it will bring out a lot of the really bad stuff in the Mueller report, concerning Trump. which, apparently so few here have read, or are even curious about.  It is said, before the Watergate impeachment process began, only about 20% of Americans were in favor of impeaching Nixon, but once the details started coming out, that number tripled over the months.  Of course, I don't think Nixon loyalists were quite as willfully ignorant as the Trump base. 

 

As for Barr, he is a bold-face liar, and nothing but a Trump stooge.  

8 hours ago, OJ Tom said:

 

 

Honestly. Go ***** yourself

I'm blocking all these #######s

I'm surrounded by them in Los Angeles, so I don't need to read their nonsense here as well.

 

 

Back at you... 

[Buffalo_Gal]

 

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

11 minutes ago, ShadyBillsFan said:

IF we thought there was No COLLUSION we would have said so directly.  

 

 

Conversely, if they thought there WAS collusion, they would have said so. They couldn't prove *****, and in this country you have to actually PROVE ***** before you indict someone.

 

Which is why Trump should unleash the IRS on every major Democratic figure in this country. Let's find out what's in their financial closets.

 

[bdutton]

4 minutes ago, Buftex said:

The only advantage to at least starting an impeachment hearing, is that it will bring out a lot of the really bad stuff in the Mueller report, concerning Trump. which, apparently so few here have read, or are even curious about.  It is said, before the Watergate impeachment process began, only about 20% of Americans were in favor of impeaching Nixon, but once the details started coming out, that number tripled over the months.  Of course, I don't think Nixon loyalists were quite as willfully ignorant as the Trump base. 

 

 

I think a lot of people here are giving the president a pass on all of the attempted obstruction because the entire premise of collusion/conspiracy was fabricated by the FBI/CIA/Clinton/Obama.

[4merper4mer]

40 minutes ago, Buffalo_Gal said:

In his report, and to Barr (who testified under oath that Mueller told him it was not a factor) he said no, that wasn't the reason (there was something of a discussion with RR). It was only when he gave his 9-minute speech did he say any such thing. Which then begs the question... if you couldn't indict a sitting president, why investigate him at all?  And why not indict those around President Trump? My gwad, Mueller recommended a Russian troll farm for prosecution! His team laid perjury traps for anyone and everyone. He was definitely not shy about recommending people for prosecution who had no connection to the "Russian Hoax". 

V2 was something outside anything a special counsel has ever done before. 

I'm not certain if you know who Alan Dershowitz is. If you do, you may want to read this article. Keep in mind that Dershowitz has always been (and still is) a loyal Democrat.

I can see investigating obstruction even being unable to indict POTUS because others around him could be indicted.  Where are those indictments? Are we to believe Trump personally tried to obstruct and that not a single member of his staff or family went along?

 

This whole thing requires falling off several turnip trucks to believe.

[GG]

9 minutes ago, Buftex said:

The only advantage to at least starting an impeachment hearing, is that it will bring out a lot of the really bad stuff in the Mueller report, concerning Trump. which, apparently so few here have read, or are even curious about.  It is said, before the Watergate impeachment process began, only about 20% of Americans were in favor of impeaching Nixon, but once the details started coming out, that number tripled over the months.  Of course, I don't think Nixon loyalists were quite as willfully ignorant as the Trump base. 

 

As for Barr, he is a bold-face liar, and nothing but a Trump stooge.  

Back at you... 

 

Contrary to popular belief many here have read a good portion of the report.   And if you are clinging to Part II of the report to hang your impeachment hat on, be careful that the hook doesn't snare your neck as well.   Part II doesn't surprise anyone who have known for decades that Trump is a temperamental narcissistic man-child.   Doesn't make it illegal though, even by the lower impeachment standards.

 

OTOH, we'll see if you dare show your face here once Horowitz, Huber, etc present their findings.

[Buffalo_Gal]

 

 

1

5 minutes ago, Joe in Winslow said:

 

Conversely, if they thought there WAS collusion, they would have said so. They couldn't prove *****, and in this country you have to actually PROVE ***** before you indict someone.

 

Which is why Trump should unleash the IRS on every major Democratic figure in this country. Let's find out what's in their financial closets.

 

I don't want that. I thought it was horrible when Obama unleashed the IRS on the tea party and his political enemies. I do not want to see another administration play that corrupt game. Yes, I know it hinders and handicaps one "side" to play by the rules when the other side will not, but the Trump administration appears to be working hard to restore the rule of law in this land. I do not want to see them backslide into the Obama era corruption techniques. 

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

I get that thinking, @Buffalo_Gal, I really do. But I think you (and the Republican party) are fooling yourself if you think there's anything resembling a rule of law in this country.

 

Sometimes corrupt structures need to be entirely broken to bring true change.

 

[SlimShady'sSpaceForce]

13 minutes ago, Joe in Winslow said:

 

Conversely, if they thought there WAS collusion, they would have said so. They couldn't prove *****, and in this country you have to actually PROVE ***** before you indict someone.

 

Which is why Trump should unleash the IRS on every major Democratic figure in this country. Let's find out what's in their financial closets.

 

 

Their hands are tied.  You can not convict a sitting president.   

 

Even charging his kids can't happen because it all ties into the guilt of Donald.  If you can;t do the first then proving the latter can't be done either.

 

 

[plenzmd1]

 

 

1

15 minutes ago, Joe in Winslow said:

 

Conversely, if they thought there WAS collusion, they would have said so. They couldn't prove *****, and in this country you have to actually PROVE ***** before you indict someone.

 

Which is why Trump should unleash the IRS on every major Democratic figure in this country. Let's find out what's in their financial closets.

 

Hmm, guess our criminal justice system has a 100% conviction rate!!! Awesome!

[sabrecrazed]

Just now, ShadyBillsFan said:

 

Their hands are tied.  You can not convict a sitting president.   

 

Even charging his kids can't happen because it all ties into the guilt of Donald.  If you can;t do the first then proving the latter can't be done either.

 

 

Wasn't Clinton charged as a sitting POTUS?

[GG]

Just now, ShadyBillsFan said:

 

Their hands are tied.  You can not convict a sitting president.   

 

Even charging his kids can't happen because it all ties into the guilt of Donald.  If you can;t do the first then proving the latter can't be done either.

 

 

 

That's utter baloney, because it was clear that Mueller and team were scalp hunting.  If there was a scintilla of indictable evidence of obstruction on anyone in Trump's orbit, you would have seen a very public perp walk.   

[LB3]

8 minutes ago, GG said:

OTOH, we'll see if you dare show your face here once Horowitz, Huber, etc present their findings.

Why wouldn't he show his face? If the findings show anything other than #Orangemanbad, then obviously Horowitz, Huber, etc are just lying Trump stooges.

[3rdnlng]

30 minutes ago, Bray Wyatt said:

 

He also said he doesnt go above and beyond, so why should we expect him to do the same with this?

Being honest, straightforward and curious is not going above and beyond here even though that may be true in his classroom.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

5 minutes ago, ShadyBillsFan said:

 

Their hands are tied.  You can not convict a sitting president.   

 

Even charging his kids can't happen because it all ties into the guilt of Donald.  If you can;t do the first then proving the latter can't be done either.

 

 

 

Laughable logic there. Don't think for one moment if there was even an IOTA of credible evidence, it wouldn't have been in the hands of the Democratic party leadership.

And @plenzmd1 our justice system ROUTINELY lets people walk because of lack of evidence. Routinely.

 

Take a look at arrest/conviction rates around the country.

 

Edited May 30, 2019 by Joe in Winslow

[plenzmd1]

1 minute ago, Joe in Winslow said:

 

Laughable logic there. Don't think for one moment if there was even an IOTA of credible evidence, it wouldn't have been in the hands of the Democratic party leadership.

And @plenzmd1 our justice system ROUTINELY lets people walk because of lack of evidence. Routinely.

 

Take a look at arrest/conviction rates around the country.

 

100% agree..you post said 

 

Quote

They couldn't prove *****, and in this country you have to actually PROVE ***** before you indict someone.

That's not even close to a factual statement..an indictment simply means we going to trial...where one needs to prove guilt...trial does equal indictment

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

1 minute ago, plenzmd1 said:

100% agree..you post said 

 

That's not even close to a factual statement..an indictment simply means we going to trial...where one needs to prove guilt...trial does equal indictment

 

arrest ----> indictment ----->conviction or exoneration

 

Take a look sometime on the percentages of arrest that even cause a trial.

 

It's quite low in most circumstances. Why? Because prosecutors know the bar is high.

 

[B-Man]

Dershowitz: Mueller Just Put His Elbow On The Scale And Revealed His Partisan Bias

https://hotair.com/archives/2019/05/29/dershowitz-mueller-just-put-elbow-scale-favor-impeachment/

.

[plenzmd1]

16 minutes ago, Joe in Winslow said:

 

arrest ----> indictment ----->conviction or exoneration

 

Take a look sometime on the percentages of arrest that even cause a trial.

 

It's quite low in most circumstances. Why? Because prosecutors know the bar is high.

 

I agree..but your statement was there was no indictment because Mueller had no evidence, and in this case that is just 100 % not correct. He stated yesterday no indictment because the President cannot be indicted while he is the President..totally different argument

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

1 minute ago, plenzmd1 said:

I agree..but your statement was there was no indictment because Mueller had no evidence, and in this case that is just 100 % not correct. He stated yesterday no indictment because the President cannot be indicted while he is the President..totally different argument

 

List all the evidence contained within the mueller report.

 

 

[McGee Return TD]

On 3/24/2019 at 11:37 AM, Tiberius said:

I guess you right wingers have to declare victory before the report is out to try and convince casual news consumers "drive byes" that there is nothing in it, when you have no clue at all yourselves. 

 

What if Mueller concludes a president can't be indicted but there is evidence he should be? 

 

Tibs the soothsayer

On 3/23/2019 at 11:59 AM, Deranged Rhino said:

 

Trump knew. 

 

Ive said this for months. Trumps mueller jabs were kabuki theater. The design to accomplish exactly what happened yesterday. 

 

Muellers job was to isolate the corrupt plotters and have them chase their tail while good cops watched the dirty cops like Hawks, logging every corner they cut, every law they broke in their attempt to "get" Trump. 

 

Pain comes next. 

 

DR the moron

Edited May 30, 2019 by McGee Return TD

[BuffaloHokie13]

1 minute ago, plenzmd1 said:

I agree..but your statement was there was no indictment because Mueller had no evidence, and in this case that is just 100 % not correct. He stated yesterday no indictment because the President cannot be indicted while he is the President..totally different argument

Didn't he also say he didn't have enough to convict in court? He spent 2 years looking. He was never going to prove innocence, that wasn't his job, but he seems to believe that what he did find would result in not guilty.

[Deranged Rhino]

2 minutes ago, plenzmd1 said:

I agree..but your statement was there was no indictment because Mueller had no evidence, and in this case that is just 100 % not correct. He stated yesterday no indictment because the President cannot be indicted while he is the President..totally different argument

 

Its not a prosecutors job to exonerate. We are all innocent until proven guilty. If a prosecutor does not have enough evidence to make a case, the subject remains innocent. 

 

Which is where we are w Trump. Mueller, by not indicting him, declared him innocent even if he wants to play semantics. There's not a single accusation of guilt in all 400 pages in the report. Not one. Starr wrote Clinton was guilty 13 times in his, and charged him. 

 

Its sad that so many liberals (I say this as one) are so quick to turn their backs on the very nature of our system of justice just because orange man bad and tds. Its not only sad, it's dangerous. 

[bdutton]

Just now, Deranged Rhino said:

 

Its not a prosecutors job to exonerate. We are all innocent until proven guilty. If a prosecutor does not have enough evidence to make a case, the subject remains innocent. 

  

Which is where we are w Trump. Mueller, by not indicting him, declared him innocent even if he wants to play semantics. There's not a single accusation of guilt in all 400 pages in the report. Not one. Starr wrote Clinton was guilty 13 times in his, and charged him. 

  

Its sad that so many liberals (I say this as one) are so quick to turn their backs on the very nature of our system of justice just because orange man bad and tds. Its not only sad, it's dangerous. 

I think the argument from the other side is that Mueller elected not to indict because DOJ rules prevented him from indicting a sitting President.

 

Even though he didn't state that exactly, that is the inference.

[Deranged Rhino]

Just now, bdutton said:

I think the argument from the other side is that Mueller elected not to indict because DOJ rules prevented him from indicting a sitting President.

 

Even though he didn't state that exactly, that is the inference.

 

I agree that's the argument - it's just very thin. As covered yesterday if the only thin holding him back was that rule, they would have indicted Flynn, Don Jr, and Manafort for obstruction to make the case easier for congress. But he didn't. Because he could never make any of those cases with or without the rule. 

[B-Man]

America left to face the nasty consequences of Robert Mueller’s actions

New York Post, by Michael Goodwin

Original Article

 

 

 

 

 

ROBERT MUELLER, PARTISAN FRAUD

Much has been written about Robert Mueller’s appearance before the press today, in which spoke briefly and nervously, repeating points that have already been made ad nauseam in his own report and elsewhere. Why did he do it? And why did he appear so nervous while he did it? Speculation has been rampant.

Scott posted a transcript of Mueller’s remarks earlier today. Much could be said about them, but I want to focus on just one aspect of Mueller’s characterization of his own investigation.

Two years ago, the acting attorney general asked me to serve as special counsel and he created the special counsel’s office. The appointment order directed the office to investigate Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election. This included investigating any links or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the Trump campaign.

The key word there is “included.” What else did Mueller’s charge include? Nothing, apparently. But we actually know that there were “links” between a presidential campaign and Russians who (if they existed at all) likely were associated with Putin’s regime. The campaign was Hillary Clinton’s, and the Russians were those on whose reports Christopher Steele based his infamous dossier.

[3rdnlng]

Mueller muddied the waters on purpose and he is the one who is obstructing justice.

 

 

https://www.redstate.com/bonchie/2019/05/30/mueller-backtracks-presser-tries-clarify-matters-joint-statement-bill-barr/

 

"In other words, Mueller is now saying “wait, wait I never said Trump would have been charged if he weren’t President, only that the fact that he was President is why I didn’t bother to answer the question.”

It’s still a weak kneed answer in my humble opinion. If that is what he meant, he could have specifically clarified that at the presser to quell the storm. Instead, his weasel language gave the entirely of the media and Democrat party the green light to claim that the OLC opinion is all that stopped Trump from being charged. He threw chum into the water and it’s really hard to interpret his actions as anything other than intentional.

Now, some will take issue with the use of the word backtrack in this article. I think it’s accurate."

[plenzmd1]

19 minutes ago, BuffaloHokie13 said:

Didn't he also say he didn't have enough to convict in court? He spent 2 years looking. He was never going to prove innocence, that wasn't his job, but he seems to believe that what he did find would result in not guilty.

No, he said it was not in the realm of "fairness" to accuse(indict) someone of a crime that did not have the ability to defend and clear himself in court. So, if the 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

7

17 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

Its not a prosecutors job to exonerate. We are all innocent until proven guilty. If a prosecutor does not have enough evidence to make a case, the subject remains innocent. 

 

Which is where we are w Trump. Mueller, by not indicting him, declared him innocent even if he wants to play semantics. There's not a single accusation of guilt in all 400 pages in the report. Not one. Starr wrote Clinton was guilty 13 times in his, and charged him. 

 

Its sad that so many liberals (I say this as one) are so quick to turn their backs on the very nature of our system of justice just because orange man bad and tds. Its not only sad, it's dangerous. 

He specifically said he did declare him innocent..nor guilty

 

Quote

if we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so. We did not, however, make a determination as to whether the president did commit a crime.

What he said is the President cannot be charged, and it is up to Congress now to decide .

***** @Deranged Rhino, i cannot edit my post

 

he declared he did NOT find him innocent..nor guilty