Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts


Meh, it is over. Unless the House decides to impeach - and they may have to in order to take the spotlight off the coming Obama Administration indictments - the perjury-trap investigation is over. 

Mueller went up there, muddied the waters enough for everyone to be pissed at him, and walked off.  No one was happy, and there was enough said to confirm anyone's bias. 

I wonder what happens when Assange has a say? Russia! Russia! Russia!  or, IOW some Facebook ads.  Oh, and when does the DNC server get looked at by the FBI? 

  • Like (+1) 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Buffalo_Gal said:


Meh, it is over. Unless the House decides to impeach - and they may have to in order to take the spotlight off the coming Obama Administration indictments - the perjury-trap investigation is over. 

Mueller went up there, muddied the waters enough for everyone to be pissed at him, and walked off.  No one was happy, and there was enough said to confirm anyone's bias. 

I wonder what happens when Assange has a say? Russia! Russia! Russia!  or, IOW some Facebook ads.  Oh, and when does the DNC server get looked at by the FBI? 

 

they never made a copy of the DNC server???

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

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

As both sides parse and spin -- here's the immediate response from Trump's campaign :lol: 

 

 

 

What's going to be hilarious are the cut ups from left leaning folks of the SAME press conference. 

Just now, row_33 said:

 

they never made a copy of the DNC server???

 

 

 

The gov't never saw the DNC server. The DNC never gave it over.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Buffalo_Gal said:


AFAIK it was never turned over to the FBI (please, someone correct me if that is wrong!)

 

i know.... that would be the first thing IT would do if it was even 1% legit an investigation

 

  • Like (+1) 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
 
 
8 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

Oh no, impeachment will be fine. It will be the Movie of the Mueller Report. 

 

Senate won't convict, but the damage of Trump will be done. 

 

If the Dems are smart they will use impeachment to smash Trump down so he walks into 2020 a dead man walking (and tweeting garbage) 

I kinda don't think so. It's all so worn out at this point. I think only the most devoted, radical communists are paying any real attention to this now Hoping to be proven right one of these times. It's kinda like watching a replay of the Bills/Giants Super Bowl wishing for a different outcome.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

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

As both sides parse and spin -- here's the immediate response from Trump's campaign :lol: 

 

 

 

What's going to be hilarious are the cut ups from left leaning folks of the SAME press conference. 

 

The gov't never saw the DNC server. The DNC never gave it over.

 

the protection of the DNC is so vile....

 

maybe that's why Nixon wanted to break into HQ....  :D

 

 

  • Haha (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

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

As both sides parse and spin -- here's the immediate response from Trump's campaign :lol: 

 

 

What's going to be hilarious are the cut ups from left leaning folks of the SAME press conference. 

 

 

 

 

:w00t:

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Golden Goat said:

I get such a weird vibe from Mueller. Like I've seen him on Forensic Files or something.

 

all that time and NOTHING

 

anyone worth $2 an hour would have found SOMETHING on The Donald

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As Tibsy breathlessly told us.............added: and Mcgee

 

"If we had had confidence that the president had clearly not committed a crime we would have said so." Mueller

 

 

That's not how this works.

 

It's the other way around.

 

 You look for evidence that a crime was committed, and if you don't find it you say "we didn't find any."

 

You don't look for evidence that it wasn't and then say, "we couldn't find evidence of innocence."

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.

Edited by B-Man
  • Like (+1) 3
  • Thank you (+1) 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, B-Man said:

As Tibsy breathlessly told us.............added: and Mcgee

 

"If we had had confidence that the president had clearly not committed a crime we would have said so." Mueller

 

 

That's not how this works?

 

It's the other way around.

 

 You look for evidence that a crime was committed, and if you don't find it you say "we didn't find any."

 

You don't look for evidence that it wasn't and then say, "we couldn't find evidence of innocence."

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.

 

It's alarming to hear this from the former head of the FBI. 

 

Makes you wonder what Comey learned at his feet.

 

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Deranged Rhino said:

 

 

You left out part of the quote -- but that's because you're not being honest. Which is on brand.

 

Finish it then, please. 

2 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

 

You left out part of the quote -- but that's because you're not being honest. Which is on brand.

 

 

The order appointing the special counsel authorized us to investigate actions that could obstruct the investigation. And we conducted that investigation and we kept the office of the acting attorney general apprised of the progress of our work. And as set forth in the report after that investigation, 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. The introduction to the volume two of our report explains that decision. It explains that under long-standing department policy a president cannot be charged with a federal crime while he is in office. That is unconstitutional. Even if the charge is kept under seal and hidden from public view, that too is prohibited. The special counsel’s office is part of the department of justice and by regulation it was bound by that department policy. Charging the president with a crime was, therefore, not an option we could consider.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Buffalo_Gal said:


I expected them to manufacturer something, IYKWIMAITYD. 

 

i don't even believe Trump didn't do SOMETHING worthy of parading around....

 

 

image.png.d3fa51a74f6e647d3c8c34f9c05e6f61.png

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, McGee Return TD said:

 

Finish it then, please. 

 

I did two pages ago. 

“We did not determine whether the president did commit a crime,”

 

Keep cherry picking and pretending you're objective. You're not. You're also terrible at this.

1 minute ago, Buffalo_Gal said:


And let us not forget that the FISA abuse started in 2012 while he was head of the FBI. ?

Link to Rosemary Collyer Report for those that want a refresher on FISA abuse. 

 

100%

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Just now, Deranged Rhino said:

 

I did two pages ago. 

“We did not determine whether the president did commit a crime,”

 

Keep cherry picking and pretending you're objective. You're not. You're also terrible at this.

 

and you left off the rest of the quote.

 

The introduction to the volume two of our report explains that decision. It explains that under long-standing department policy a president cannot be charged with a federal crime while he is in office. That is unconstitutional. Even if the charge is kept under seal and hidden from public view, that too is prohibited. The special counsel’s office is part of the department of justice and by regulation it was bound by that department policy. Charging the president with a crime was, therefore, not an option we could consider.

  • Haha (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Buffalo_Gal said:


AFAIK it was never turned over to the FBI (please, someone correct me if that is wrong!)

 

There's a long discussion about this a year or so ago in one of Greggy's threads. 

 

Investigators only got an ISO image of the server, not the physical drive.  According to some experts on this site, that should have been enough.  But depending on the political viewpoint, the opposing experts disagreed.

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, McGee Return TD said:

 

 

and you left off the rest of the quote.

 

The introduction to the volume two of our report explains that decision. It explains that under long-standing department policy a president cannot be charged with a federal crime while he is in office. That is unconstitutional. Even if the charge is kept under seal and hidden from public view, that too is prohibited. The special counsel’s office is part of the department of justice and by regulation it was bound by that department policy. Charging the president with a crime was, therefore, not an option we could consider.

 

"We did not determine whether the president did commit a crime" makes that rather moot.

 

At least, to normal, rational people.

  • Like (+1) 2
  • Haha (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, DC Tom said:

 

"We did not determine whether the president did commit a crime" makes that rather moot.

 

At least, to normal, rational people.

 

Charging the president with a crime was, therefore, not an option we could consider makes that rather moot.

 

At least, to normal, rational people.

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, GG said:

 

There's a long discussion about this a year or so ago in one of Greggy's threads. 

 

Investigators only got an ISO image of the server, not the physical drive.  According to some experts on this site, that should have been enough.  But depending on the political viewpoint, the opposing experts disagreed.

 

Correct. 

 

CrowdStrike - the DNC vendor - performed the analysis on their own and Comey took their work as gold because, per Comey, CrowdStrike was also an FBI vendor. 

 

(see how that works, people?)

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Deranged Rhino said:

 

Correct. :beer: 

 

I mean, it should be obvious.  "We didn't determine he committed a crime.  And we didn't charge him because it's policy not to."

 

The policy's ***** irrelevant if you don't determine a crime was committed.  What, you're going to charge someone when you determine he didn't commit a crime?  

  • Like (+1) 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, McGee Return TD said:

 

Charging the president with a crime was, therefore, not an option we could consider makes that rather moot.

 

At least, to normal, rational people.

 

You're killing me.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, DC Tom said:

 

I mean, it should be obvious.  "We didn't determine he committed a crime.  And we didn't charge him because it's policy not to."

 

The policy's ***** irrelevant if you don't determine a crime was committed.  What, you're going to charge someone when you determine he didn't commit a crime?  

 

You'd think. 

 

But TDS is a degenerative disease as that poster keeps proving with each new screen name he jumps to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

“I hope and expect that this will be the only time I will speak to you...” “The report is my testimony.”

 

 

They're still going to subpoena him. They want to keep this alive for the election

 

 

Their desperation is obvious, in the media/dems responses..............as well as on this board ?

 

 

.

  • Like (+1) 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Just now, Tiberius said:

Insufficient evidence. Then there is evidence, just not enough to go to trial with. And that's on conspiracy with a foreign government 

 

That's not how our system of justice works. At all. That's how Soviet Russia used to work though... are you sure you're rooting for the right team, Tibs?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...