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

[B-Man]

 

 

.

 

[plenzmd1]

 

 

 

2

23 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

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. 

this is pure speculation, and assumes many many things

[GG]

No, it only assumes one thing and that is that the obstruction was done solely by Trump without help from anyone around him.    And that supposition is virtually impossible.

[B-Man]

[row_33]

so Mueller gave useful and sane people grounds to see there's nothing here and get on with your life

 

and to all the nut-tard TDS folk it justified their insanity

 

okay

 

 

[Deranged Rhino]

22 minutes ago, plenzmd1 said:

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

 

After 9 minutes of rambling slander and innuendo designed to make people think he COULD NOT find him guilty. Which, is not his job. He literally said what he was doing was unfair while he was doing it. And he was right. 

19 minutes ago, plenzmd1 said:

this is pure speculation, and assumes many many things

 

It isn't though. For over a year the speculation was that they were going to indict those men for exactly that crime. Even Mueller's own 10 examples of "possible" obstruction include references to Don Jr's role in the Trump Tower meeting for example. And Cohen's statements about a call he overheard w Trump and his son. 

 

If Trump obstructed justice he didn't do it alone. And there are a handful of existing indictments they could have used to tack on obstruction charges if Mueller believed he was only prevented from indicting Trump because of the "rule". But he didn't. Because he knew he couldn't make those cases. Just like he knows he couldn't make a case against Trump even if he wasn't prevented from doing so. 

 

The obstruction section of the report is ridiculous if you read it. It's untested, unchallenged testimony and legal theory which don't pass muster.

[Nanker]

52 minutes ago, Joe in Winslow said:

 

List all the evidence contained within the mueller report.

 

 

Here's the 15 count indictment:

1. Orange Man Bad
2. Orange Man Bad
3. Orange Man Bad
4. Orange Man Fired Comey
5. Orange Man Fired Rosenstein
6. Orange Man Fired Mueller
7. Orange Man Started War with North Korea
8. Orange Man Started War with China
9. Orange Man Started War with Iran
10. Orange Man Cut our taxes
11. Orange Man Dissed Sidney
12. Orange Man Plays Golf
13. Orange Man is Rich
14. Orange Man is Racist - he only gave Mexico one letter in the USMCA title while Canada and the US got two!
15. Orange Man Bad

[Deranged Rhino]

 

[plenzmd1]

Quote

After 9 minutes of rambling slander and innuendo designed to make people think he COULD NOT find him guilty. Which, is not his job. He literally said what he was doing was unfair while he was doing it. And he was right. 

 

 

 

Quote

It isn't though. For over a year the speculation was that they were going to indict those men for exactly that crime. Even Mueller's own 10 examples of "possible" obstruction include references to Don Jr's role in the Trump Tower meeting for example. And Cohen's statements about a call he overheard w Trump and his son. 

 

If Trump obstructed justice he didn't do it alone. And there are a handful of existing indictments they could have used to tack on obstruction charges if Mueller believed he was only prevented from indicting Trump because of the "rule". But he didn't. Because he knew he couldn't make those cases. Just like he knows he couldn't make a case against Trump even if he wasn't prevented from doing so. 

 

The obstruction section of the report is ridiculous if you read it. It's untested, unchallenged testimony and legal theory which don't pass muster.

 

Going to try it this way @Deranged Rhino

 

1) Have no clue what you mean by the first quote..could be you, could be me..but i have no clue?

 

2) Speculation means squadoosh

 

3) Yes, yes he can. Just asking McGahn to falsify testimony can be considered obstruction, even though McGahn did not follow the directive and has no part of the obstruction.

[row_33]

whatever, let them play in their sandbox, more important things to do like keep MAGAing on

 

[Deranged Rhino]

16 minutes ago, plenzmd1 said:

Going to try it this way @Deranged Rhino

 

1) Have no clue what you mean by the first quote..could be you, could be me..but i have no clue?

 

 

All good, my dude. No idea why your posts do this (and it's not just yours, I've noticed others get this issue as well).  

 

As for the first quote, what I mean is that prosecutors do not go out and discuss the cases they don't charge in public. They don't talk about the evidence that MIGHT have made their case, and they aren't (ever) expected to exonerate anyone they don't charge and explain why. As Mueller said, it would be unfair to talk about the evidence (which wasn't enough to make a case) in a way that slanders and makes it unfair for the subject of the investigation. 

 

Yet, that's exactly what Mueller did, while he was saying he wouldn't do it. He was speaking out both sides of his mouth and undercutting the fundamental tenant of justice system: innocent until proven guilty. Not guilty unless exonerated in full. That's a complete misrepresentation of how our system worked -- and it's what Mueller did in his press conference yesterday. 

 

19 minutes ago, plenzmd1 said:

2) Speculation means squadoosh

 

If speculation means nothing, which I'd agree in a legal sense, then speculating Mueller COULD have charged him if not for X also means squadoosh, right? In other words, no matter what Mueller said yesterday his report and its findings remain: 

 

No charges for collusion. No charges for Conspiracy (and, as volume 1 lays out, there is little to no evidence for either of these charges which should be the biggest takeaway). No charges for Obstruction (Barr ruled on it after Mueller punted). In a legal sense, the matter is settled and Mueller -- by not indicting Trump -- declared him innocent. 

 

21 minutes ago, plenzmd1 said:

3) Yes, yes he can. Just asking McGahn to falsify testimony can be considered obstruction, even though McGahn did not follow the directive and has no part of the obstruction.

 

If you read that section of volume 2 and the legal theory they lay out to make the case how it might be obstruction, you'll see this is one of the worst examples they brought up in their 10. First, McGahn was not cross examined, his testimony alone is not evidence or proof of anything. Second, talking about doing something and not doing it is NOT obstruction of justice. Unless you want to move into a world where federal prosecutors can indict, charge, and convict any American citizen for thought crimes. That's not a world any of us want to live in if you think about it beyond the politics of the moment. 

 

The reality is Trump was innocent of collusion and conspiracy, he knew he was innocent of these charges, and yet he had to suffer for 2.5 years with every outlet, every reporter, every American questioning, accusing, and speculating he was a traitor to his country. For a normal tempered person, that would weigh heavy and spark the occasional bout of outrage and anger -- and it'd be justified. For a narcissistic POTUS who is watching his presidency being hobbled by unfounded charges by his political enemies, I'd expect it to be much worse. Yet he did nothing but rant and rave...

 

Legally that's not obstruction. Per Barr and even per Mueller/Weissman who hedged their bets during their report by couching it in "legal theory" -- which was largely untested in court. 

 

Politically you can try to make that case, and they are, but the reality remains the same. The political argument now, after three years of claiming he was a traitor working with Russia is: "he didn't collude/conspire with Russia but he THOUGHT about firing Mueller thus he committed the crime of obstructing the investigation into an event that did not happen."

 

You don't think that's a persuasive card to play outside of the partisan bubble do you? I don't.  

[Buffalo_Gal]

 

 

 

7 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

All good, my dude. No idea why your posts do this (and it's not just yours, I've noticed others get this issue as well).  

I think it is a board software coding error. I belong to another forum that uses the same software for their boards and quoted someone in a post yesterday where the same issue occurred (long beginning, could not edit the post afterward).  Guess we will see after the next invision software update. 

[McGee Return TD]

 

 

LOL - Wasn't there some #deepstater here who claimed the meeting was an obvious sign of Trump and Mueller working together because bleh blah blah #deepstate?

 

[LB3]

16 minutes ago, McGee Return TD said:

LOL - Wasn't there some #deepstater here who claimed the meeting was an obvious sign of Trump and Mueller working together because bleh blah blah #deepstate?

 

Great recall from a guy who joined the site just a month ago. 

[McGee Return TD]

Just now, LBSeeBallLBGetBall said:

Great recall from a guy who joined the site just a month ago. 

 

Posts are forever until you delete them. It's not difficult to read through a thread. The QANON one has been my favorite. 

[Deranged Rhino]

4 minutes ago, LBSeeBallLBGetBall said:

Great recall from a guy who joined the site just a month ago. 

 

  

[transplantbillsfan]

4 hours 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?

 

 

8 days between the firing of Comey vs more than half a year from when Trump got elected.

 

Deny it all you want, but the Comey firing was the catalyst for the hiring of the Speicial Counsel.

Edited May 30, 2019 by transplantbillsfan

[Q-baby!]

1 hour ago, Nanker said:

Here's the 15 count indictment:

1. Orange Man Bad
2. Orange Man Bad
3. Orange Man Bad
4. Orange Man Fired Comey
5. Orange Man Fired Rosenstein
6. Orange Man Fired Mueller
7. Orange Man Started War with North Korea
8. Orange Man Started War with China
9. Orange Man Started War with Iran
10. Orange Man Cut our taxes
11. Orange Man Dissed Sidney
12. Orange Man Plays Golf
13. Orange Man is Rich
14. Orange Man is Racist - he only gave Mexico one letter in the USMCA title while Canada and the US got two!
15. Orange Man Bad

Wanker! 

[Deranged Rhino]

2 minutes ago, transplantbillsfan said:

 

8 days between the firing of Comey vs more than half a year from when Trump got elected.

 

Deny it all you want, but the Comet firing was the catalyst.

 

This is factually incorrect. 

 

You're saying the catalyst for the investigation into Trump began after he was elected? What about Crossfire Hurricane? What about the Counterintelligence investigation? Where those formed using some sort of precognition that Trump would fire Comey months later? 

 

You're wildly underinformed on this matter. Wildly. 

[Q-baby!]

30 minutes ago, McGee Return TD said:

 

 

LOL - Wasn't there some #deepstater here who claimed the meeting was an obvious sign of Trump and Mueller working together because bleh blah blah #deepstate?

 

Probably deranged re-tard. 

[Deranged Rhino]

 Troller in Chief

 

 

[McGee Return TD]

3 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 Troller in Chief

 

 

 

Liberals suck at trolling.

 

[Koko78]

3 hours ago, 4merper4mer said:

Also, who won that arm wrestling match on Facebook? 

 

Jesus did, but only because he colluded with the misogynistic Russians to have Comey shine a really bright light in Satan's eyes during the competition. He wrote a book about it.

[SlimShady'sSpaceForce]

I'm sure this is FAKE News too

 

 

 

2 hours 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.

 

Evidence showed that he was clearly not innocent of all charges (forget the collusion crap) of obstruction

 

You can't indict a sitting pres so basically his hands are tied.  

 

[Dante]

4 minutes ago, ShadyBillsFan said:

I'm sure this is FAKE News too

 

 

 

Of course, it is. After 2.5 years you guys still haven't figured it out you never will. Blinded by hate.

[Deranged Rhino]

10 minutes ago, ShadyBillsFan said:

I'm sure this is FAKE News too

 

 

 

 

Anything Bill Kristol puts his name to is, almost by definition, fake news. He's a disgraced neocon who's been wrong on nearly everything he's claimed to be an expert on over the past 20 years. 

 

The left embracing people like Kristol just because of TDS, is one of the more insane developments of the past three years. 

11 minutes ago, ShadyBillsFan said:

Evidence showed that he was clearly not innocent of all charges (forget the collusion crap) of obstruction

 

First, that's NOT how the legal system works. At all. 

 

Second, "forget the collusion crap"? You can't brush that off so easily. Not after three years of every MSM, establishment politician and pundit claiming this not only happened but they had evidence it happened and it constituted treason. 

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

32 minutes ago, transplantbillsfan said:

 

8 days between the firing of Comey vs more than half a year from when Trump got elected.

 

Deny it all you want, but the Comey firing was the catalyst for the hiring of the Speicial Counsel.

 

 

And you call Trump supporters delusional?

 

 

[B-Man]

1 hour ago, B-Man said:

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/

 

 

 

FTA:

 

No responsible prosecutor should ever suggest that the subject of his investigation might indeed be guilty even if there was insufficient evidence or other reasons not to indict.

 

Supporters of Mueller will argue that this is not an ordinary case, that he is not an ordinary prosecutor, and that President Trump is not an ordinary subject of an investigation.

 

They are wrong. The rules should not be any different.

 

 

 

[Buffalo_Gal]

Quid pro quo?
 

Interesting speculation here. Sounds plausible. That damn Barr-guy. ?
 

</snip>
 

Here's the real story, in my opinion, with Mueller's press conference: Mueller doesn't want to be called by Nadler to testify before the House Judiciary because he doesn't want to answer tough questions under oath. Nadler doesn't want to call Mueller because he doesn't want Mueller answering questions that undermine the Democrats' plan to keep a cloud of suspicion floating over Trump until 2020. Mueller and Nadler are communicating because Nadler was pretending to negotiate a Mueller appearance before his committee. Basically, Nadler was like, "I need you to give me something if you don't want to be called to testify." And of course, Mueller was more than happy to hold a press conference where he could recapture his rightful status on all those prayer candles after failing to seal the deal against Trump with his report. I should mention that the Senate Republicans can call Mueller to testify, but I have little faith they will do that because they are sad, weak little men.
 

A compromise had to be made because the Democrats' planned narrative was derailed with Barr's cut-to-the-chase press conference. But this time, Mueller delivered for the Democrats by insinuating that his team could not charge Trump because of DoJ's regulations not to bring charges against a sitting president...but would have if not for the regulation.
 

AG Barr testified under oath otherwise about the DoJ regulation. Barr said that Mueller told him three times it was not the case that the OLC regulation prevented him from bringing charges. I believe Barr, who made this assertion under oath, over Mueller, who does not want to make any statements under oath. There were also witnesses to this conversation. I wonder what they have to say.
 

</snip>

[keepthefaith]

39 minutes ago, transplantbillsfan said:

 

8 days between the firing of Comey vs more than half a year from when Trump got elected.

 

Deny it all you want, but the Comet firing was the catalyst.

 

Trump would have been better served to fire Comey just after inauguration.  Certainly the guy deserved to be fired for what has been made public regarding both the Clinton and Trump investigations. 

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

11 minutes ago, ShadyBillsFan said:

I'm sure this is FAKE News too

 

 

 

 

Evidence showed that he was clearly not innocent of all charges (forget the collusion crap) of obstruction

 

You can't indict a sitting pres so basically his hands are tied.  

 

Recognizing the collusion angle was "crap" means you're halfway there. 

 

You need to do some work on the fundamentals of our justice system to understand why your comment below makes you appear unprepared to engage in serious debate on this issue: 

 

 

Evidence showed that he was clearly not innocent of all charges (forget the collusion crap) of obstruction

 

 

 

 

 

[B-Man]

27 minutes ago, McGee Return TD said:

 

Liberals suck at trolling.

 

 

 

You know that that is a fake meme........................I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say you are just stupid.

 

The above-reproduced image and quote attributed to Donald Trump began appearing in our inbox in mid-October 2015. The format is easily recognizable as one wherein questionable or offensive words are attributed to the individual pictured, and in this case image claims that Donald Trump made the following statement in a 1998 interview with People magazine:

 

Despite People‘s comprehensive online content archive, we found no interview or profile on Donald Trump in 1998 (or any other time) that quoted his saying anything that even vaguely resembled the words in this meme. Trump appeared somewhat regularly in the magazine’s pages before he came to star on The Apprentice, but the bulk of the magazine’s celebrity-driven coverage of him back then centered on his marriages to, and divorces from, Ivana Trump and Marla Maples.

 

False

 

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/1998-trump-people-quote/

 

 

But hey.............................keep posting.

[Buffalo_Gal]

24 minutes ago, ShadyBillsFan said:

I'm sure this is FAKE News too

 

 

 

 

Evidence showed that he was clearly not innocent of all charges (forget the collusion crap) of obstruction

 

You can't indict a sitting pres so basically his hands are tied.  

 

Head of the SS Never Trump? ?️ ?️ ?️

Bill went down with the ship. ?

[BuffaloHokie13]

27 minutes ago, ShadyBillsFan said:

 

Evidence showed that he was clearly not innocent of all charges (forget the collusion crap) of obstruction

 

You can't indict a sitting pres so basically his hands are tied.

There are two choices. Guilty or not guilty. Clearly not innocent sounds nice and all, but means absolutely nothing. 

[Buftex]

8 minutes ago, B-Man said:

 

 

You know that that is a fake meme........................I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say you are just stupid.

 

The above-reproduced image and quote attributed to Donald Trump began appearing in our inbox in mid-October 2015. The format is easily recognizable as one wherein questionable or offensive words are attributed to the individual pictured, and in this case image claims that Donald Trump made the following statement in a 1998 interview with People magazine:

 

Despite People‘s comprehensive online content archive, we found no interview or profile on Donald Trump in 1998 (or any other time) that quoted his saying anything that even vaguely resembled the words in this meme. Trump appeared somewhat regularly in the magazine’s pages before he came to star on The Apprentice, but the bulk of the magazine’s celebrity-driven coverage of him back then centered on his marriages to, and divorces from, Ivana Trump and Marla Maples.

 

False

 

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/1998-trump-people-quote/

 

 

But hey.............................keep posting.

I thought Snopes was some liberal concoction...we should trust their verdict?

 

And if you are mad at somebody for posting BS... look in the mirror...you insane fool.

Edited May 30, 2019 by Buftex

[Koko78]

9 minutes ago, B-Man said:

 

You know that that is a fake meme........................I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say you are just stupid.

 

The above-reproduced image and quote attributed to Donald Trump began appearing in our inbox in mid-October 2015. The format is easily recognizable as one wherein questionable or offensive words are attributed to the individual pictured, and in this case image claims that Donald Trump made the following statement in a 1998 interview with People magazine:

 

 

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/1998-trump-people-quote/

 

 

But hey.............................keep posting.

 

[Buffalo_Gal]

1 minute ago, Buftex said:

I thought Snopes was some liberal concoction...we should trust their verdict?

 

And if you are mad at somebody for posting BS... look in the mirror...you insane fool.

Pretty sure the point is ... If even snopes reports it is false, well, imagine how ***** stupid it must be to repeat. ? 

[DC Tom]

33 minutes ago, ShadyBillsFan said:

I'm sure this is FAKE News too

 

 

 

 

Evidence showed that he was clearly not innocent of all charges (forget the collusion crap) of obstruction

 

 

"Clearly not innocent" is whack-a-doodle bull####.  That's Title IX abuse "preponderance of evidence" nonsense. Quote me the statute, criminal procedure, or case law where that means something.

 

34 minutes ago, ShadyBillsFan said:

 

You can't indict a sitting pres so basically his hands are tied.  

 

 

No, you can't.  You impeach him first.  How's that going?  Where's the "preponderance of evidence" standard codified for that?

[B-Man]

7 minutes ago, Buffalo_Gal said:

Pretty sure the point is ... If even snopes reports it is false, well, imagine how ***** stupid it must be to repeat. ? 

 

 

Absolutely right.

 

Even though Buftex doesn't grasp it.

 

You read some sites (like Snopes) knowing they lean left.

 

In this case , there was no choice but to give it a FALSE.

[Deranged Rhino]