Steve Ott

Recent Friends:

Trout Giggles Trout Giggles DocPhil Eat The Press Do Not Read It Enoch 96WS6 Randy screminmimi Nigel Dogberry sixpick Petey Coober Kavika Dowser Perrie Halpern R.A. A. Macarthur Jerry Verlinger

Mueller Report

  
By:  Steve Ott  •  Blog  •  4 weeks ago  •  150 comments

Mueller Report

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/5955210-Redacted-Mueller-Report.html

This is a link to a searchable version of the report.

Please read and educate yourself.

Tags

jrBlog - desc
Find text within the comments Find 
 
Steve Ott
1  author  Steve Ott    4 weeks ago

But collusion is not a specific offense or theory of liability found in the United States
Code, nor is it a term of art in federal criminal law. For those reasons, the Office's focus in analyzing questions of joint criminal liability was on conspiracy as defined in federal law. In connection with that analysis, we addressed the factual question of whether members of the Trump Campaign "coordinat[ ed]"-a term that appears in the appointment order-with Russian election interference activities.

Please people, stop talking about collusion. It has no meaning within the context of
the Special Counsel's mandate.

 
 
 
It Is ME
1.1  It Is ME  replied to  Steve Ott @1    4 weeks ago
Please people, stop talking about collusion.

Why.....Democrats won't !

"It has no meaning within the context of the Special Counsel's mandate."

Democrats in congress find it VERY meaningful....for the last 2 years taboot !

 
 
 
Steve Ott
1.1.1  author  Steve Ott  replied to  It Is ME @1.1    4 weeks ago
Why.....Democrats won't !

Well, I'm not a Democrat, nor am I a Republican.

Perhaps, you could read the report (after all, that is why I posted the link), come to your own conclusions, and discuss them in an intelligent manner rather than being a parrot.

Just perhaps, you could begin to school Democrats about the correct usage of legal language.

I know I'm flying by the seat of my pants here, but perhaps, just perhaps, a little education could go a long way toward improving the discussion.

 
 
 
It Is ME
1.1.2  It Is ME  replied to  Steve Ott @1.1.1    4 weeks ago

I read it just fine.

Besides.....Legal Language....as in Collusion....has been used by every "Attorney" in Congress ! Do they know something you don't ?

 
 
 
Steve Ott
1.1.3  author  Steve Ott  replied to  It Is ME @1.1.2    3 weeks ago
Do they know something you don't ?

Yeah, how to enrich themselves by "serving" the public.

 
 
 
It Is ME
1.1.4  It Is ME  replied to  Steve Ott @1.1.3    3 weeks ago
Yeah, how to enrich themselves by "serving" the public.

That's a "Given".....or more like "a Taking".

Isn't great that the New President doesn't need this job as an "Income" !

 
 
 
Steve Ott
1.1.5  author  Steve Ott  replied to  It Is ME @1.1.4    3 weeks ago
Isn't great that the New President doesn't need this job as an "Income" !

Rump is just the result of the disease, congress and bureaucracy are the symptom, the mindset of "I have mine, fuck you" is the disease.

 
 
 
It Is ME
1.1.6  It Is ME  replied to  Steve Ott @1.1.5    3 weeks ago
Rump is just the result of the disease, congress and bureaucracy are the symptom

Ummmm….. NO !

Trump is the result of the Usual Congress and the Usual Bureaucracy BEING THE DISEASE ! A Disease doesn't want to be repaired. It wants to keep on living the way it always has for decades and decades, thus the trashing of Trump ….. who IS the Cure !

 
 
 
Eat The Press Do Not Read It
1.1.7  Eat The Press Do Not Read It  replied to  It Is ME @1.1.4    18 hours ago

Following for Trump's Lies is akin to believing the propaganda that Hitler preached.

Trump is an International Crook. Read the Mueller Report. Taking whacks at it to support an unsupportable position is not healthy for this country.

It is time to draw the line in the sand.

 
 
 
Tacos!
2  Tacos!    4 weeks ago

After the next investigation finds no evidence of collusion, the Democrats will seek impeachment for canoodling.

 
 
 
evilgenius
2.1  evilgenius  replied to  Tacos! @2    4 weeks ago

Will that be before or after the Republicans seek another investigation into investigating the investigation about the investigation on Clinton's Email.

 
 
 
MrFrost
2.1.1  MrFrost  replied to  evilgenius @2.1    4 weeks ago

Damnit, beat me to it... GMTA. 

 
 
 
Tacos!
2.1.2  Tacos!  replied to  evilgenius @2.1    4 weeks ago

I think what you meant to say was "squirrel!"

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
2.1.3  sandy-2021492  replied to  evilgenius @2.1    4 weeks ago

Aren't we about due for another look at Benghazi?

 
 
 
Ronin2
2.1.4  Ronin2  replied to  sandy-2021492 @2.1.3    4 weeks ago

Sure, maybe this time they will finally assign a special counsel to it. Considering all that was done before was a 2.5 year investigation by a Select Committee in the House.  One that met with obstruction from the Obama administration. 

One that also proves that Congress doesn't have nearly the investigative or legal powers of a special counsel. 

 
 
 
Ronin2
2.1.5  Ronin2  replied to  evilgenius @2.1    4 weeks ago

Will there be a special counsel assigned to it that can force all of the Hillary/Obama sycophants in the FBI, and DOJ, to testify in front of a Grand Jury; and can research anything in their private lives to coerce testimony?  

Or do you want another dog and pony show where the FBI and DOJ investigates itself; and those accused say whatever they want to in front of Congress- lies and conflicting testimony don't matter.  Once done they can escape to become partisan political pundits on talk shows.

Maybe we can get a few more whistle blowers to release more emails showing how in the tank; and unwilling to prosecute Hillary they were.

 
 
 
Dulay
2.1.6  Dulay  replied to  Ronin2 @2.1.4    4 weeks ago
Sure, maybe this time they will finally assign a special counsel to it.

Why? Do you think that the 'great' Trey Gowdy, Jim Jordan and Mike Pompeo are shirkers? They  published a final report. You should READ it. 

Of course, since it exonerates Clinton of any wrongdoing, you won't agree with it.  

Considering all that was done before was a 2.5 year investigation by a Select Committee in the House.  One that met with obstruction from the Obama administration. 

Considering that is a utterly uninformed statement, you should review the reports of the 10  investigations conducted in Congress over 4 years. 

One that also proves that Congress doesn't have nearly the investigative or legal powers of a special counsel. 

A special counsel only has the investigative and legal powers documented in his/her appointment.  They have NO inherent Constitutional authority. The Congress DOES. 

 
 
 
KDMichigan
2.1.7  KDMichigan  replied to  Dulay @2.1.6    4 weeks ago
Of course, since it exonerates Clinton of any wrongdoing, you won't agree with it.  

How do you think it exonerated her?

Comey's scripted report pointed to numerous violations and stated that in other instances charges would be filed.

Can't believe you thru that out there.

 
 
 
Dulay
2.1.8  Dulay  replied to  KDMichigan @2.1.7    4 weeks ago
How do you think it exonerated her? Comey's scripted report pointed to numerous violations and stated that in other instances charges would be filed.

DO try to follow the thread KD.

My comment was in reply to a comment about the BENGHAZI investigation. Trey and his minions spent 7 MILLION and 2.5 years and they EXONERATED Clinton of all wrongdoing. As I said, go READ their report, you won't like it. 

Can't believe you thru that out there.

You don't even know what we're talking about KD. 

Carry on...

 
 
 
KDMichigan
2.1.9  KDMichigan  replied to  Dulay @2.1.8    4 weeks ago
DO try to follow the thread KD.

Think I was. Ronin comment right before yours.

Maybe we can get a few more whistle blowers to release more emails showing how in the tank; and unwilling to prosecute Hillary they were.

Benghazi... Another Government shit show. I'm not even going there... 

Besides we are off topic maybe.

 
 
 
Dulay
2.1.10  Dulay  replied to  KDMichigan @2.1.9    4 weeks ago
Think I was. Ronin comment right before yours.

But that isn't the comment I replied to IS it KD? Do you need instruction on how to follow a thread? 

 
 
 
MrFrost
2.2  MrFrost  replied to  Tacos! @2    4 weeks ago
After the next investigation finds no evidence of collusion, the Democrats will seek impeachment for canoodling.

Naw, they will just investigate the same thing over and over again, you know....BENGHAZI!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 
 
 
Steve Ott
2.3  author  Steve Ott  replied to  Tacos! @2    4 weeks ago
canoodling

A la Stormy?

no evidence of collusion

You obviously failed to read the above:

But collusion is not a specific offense or theory of liability found in the United States Code, nor is it a term of art in federal criminal law.

 
 
 
Tacos!
2.3.1  Tacos!  replied to  Steve Ott @2.3    4 weeks ago
You obviously failed to read the above:

I don't get why you say that or what you're point is.

 
 
 
Steve Ott
2.3.2  author  Steve Ott  replied to  Tacos! @2.3.1    4 weeks ago
After the next investigation finds no evidence of collusion,

The only place 'collusion' is found as a term in US criminal law is in anti-trust law. Mueller was not investigating anti-trust law. The word was used incorrectly in a news report from several years ago and has stuck, incorrectly. The investigation was about interference with the election and obstruction of the investigation into that interference.

So no, there was no collusion, but there was interference and possible obstruction, which because of the DOJ position that a sitting president cannot be criminally charged, Mueller left it to Congress to make a decision.

So, when one uses the word 'collusion' one is not even close to what the investigation was about.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
2.3.3  Sean Treacy  replied to  Steve Ott @2.3.2    4 weeks ago
n one uses the word 'collusion' one is not even close to what the investigation was about

Collusion has been used as a stand in for the criminal charge of conspiracy since this mess started. To claim they aren't related is silly. 

 
 
 
Steve Ott
2.3.4  author  Steve Ott  replied to  Sean Treacy @2.3.3    4 weeks ago

So Mueller and team were, are, silly?

So now it is ok to use a term from MSM?

Come on, when discussing legal matters, the language is everything. Words matter.

Trump was being investigated for obstruction, not collusion.

And yeah, I choose my words carefully. It's a 60+ year habit.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
2.3.5  Sean Treacy  replied to  Steve Ott @2.3.4    4 weeks ago

So now it is ok to use a term from MSM?

It's not just the MSM. It's members of Congress, pundits, reporters, the President, etc....

me on, when discussing legal matters, the language is everything. Words matter

They do matter. 

However,the investigation has been discussed for two years in public using "collusion" as short hand for an illegal conspiracy to interfere with the election.  It' is silly to pretend that people who use collusion aren't talking about criminal conspiracy.  It's common usage.   

 
 
 
Tacos!
2.3.6  Tacos!  replied to  Steve Ott @2.3.2    4 weeks ago
So, when one uses the word 'collusion' one is not even close to what the investigation was about.

Yes, I agree.

there was interference

Yes, but by Russians. The report makes clear that they did so without any intent or attempt to aid in this effort from anyone in the Trump campaign. Thus, we see the pivot to words like "collusion" or charges of obstruction.

The only problem with those charges is that it's hard to swallow the idea that someone who didn't commit a crime - and knows it - would corruptly attempt to interfere with an investigation. Bitching and moaning about it doesn't rise to the level of criminal obstruction.

Also, given the fact that the investigation concluded successfully, thanks in part to extensive cooperation from Trump and his people, it again is hard to swallow the idea that there was obstruction.

 
 
 
Dulay
2.3.7  Dulay  replied to  Sean Treacy @2.3.3    4 weeks ago
Collusion has been used as a stand in for the criminal charge of conspiracy since this mess started. To claim they aren't related is silly. 

What's silly is demanding that other members accept the term collusion just because it's been improperly used by the uneducated and the media who dumb down their vocabulary for the masses.

Just because collusion has been used ad nauseam, doesn't mean that we should continue to use the WRONG term. 

Mueller explains why collusion is not the appropriate term to use when discussing the kind of legal findings in his report, which is the topic of the seed. 

 
 
 
Dulay
2.3.8  Dulay  replied to  Tacos! @2.3.6    4 weeks ago
The report makes clear that they did so without any intent or attempt to aid in this effort from anyone in the Trump campaign.

What was the 'intent' of the Trump Tower meeting? 

Thus, we see the pivot to words like "collusion" or charges of obstruction.

The report pivots AWAY from the term collusion. The only time Mueller uses the term is when he explaining why we SHOULDN'T be using the term. The rest of the times it's in the report is quoting other's when they used the term. 

The only problem with those charges is that it's hard to swallow the idea that someone who didn't commit a crime - and knows it - would corruptly attempt to interfere with an investigation.

Are you actually claiming that Trump is intelligent enough to evaluate his actions and come to a cogent legal conclusion? 

jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

Bitching and moaning about it doesn't rise to the level of criminal obstruction.

As the report spells out, Trump did a hell of a lot more than bitch and moan. 

Also, given the fact that the investigation concluded successfully, thanks in part to extensive cooperation from Trump and his people, it again is hard to swallow the idea that there was obstruction.

So your posit is that if an investigation can be concluded, no obstruction could have occurred? Wow. 

 
 
 
Ronin2
2.3.9  Ronin2  replied to  Dulay @2.3.8    4 weeks ago
As the report spells out, Trump did a hell of a lot more than bitch and moan. 

Was anything acted on?  If so how did poor Mueller and his Hillary and Obama sycophants ever manage to conclude their investigation? 

Firing the incompetent ass Comey doesn't count. The Dems were all for that before Trump actually did it. Then they were against it after Comey became their darling again by turning on Trump and leaking information.

The left needs to look no further than Obama when it comes to obstruction. Trump needs to follow in Obama's footsteps; which it seems he is now doing by barring anyone in his administration from testify to congress; and declaring Executive Privilege on all the redacted portions of the Mueller report.

Next the left will be telling us how a president cannot rule the country by EO.

 
 
 
Tacos!
2.3.10  Tacos!  replied to  Dulay @2.3.8    4 weeks ago
What was the 'intent' of the Trump Tower meeting?

Apparently nothing criminal or there would have been indictments issued as a result. Next?

You know, just because you point at something, wink to your friends, nod knowingly, and say "harrumph!" a lot, that doesn't mean a crime happened. 

The report pivots AWAY from the term collusion.

Yes, because it was stupidly being misused by Democrats and the media. And in spite of the report explaining this, people continue to use it as if it were something important. It's not.

Are you actually claiming that Trump is intelligent enough to evaluate his actions and come to a cogent legal conclusion?

Yes. I have no reason not to. I think he knows whether or not he tried to cooperate with Russians to interfere with the election. Oh and by the way, it turns out he was right. He made no such effort. Mueller said so.

Trump did a hell of a lot more than bitch and moan

That's right. He submitted over a million documents. He answered questions. He directed his subordinates to answer questions and to do so truthfully. In short he cooperated with the investigation while also complaining about it. Life is often complex like that.

So your posit is that if an investigation can be concluded, no obstruction could have occurred? Wow.

Once again you demonstrate your willingness to change the meanings of words. I said it was hard to swallow. I didn't say it couldn't have occurred. But logically, if the guy didn't do anything wrong, visibly cooperated with the investigation, and the investigation proceeded unhindered, there is an extreme burden on the accusers to prove obstruction and that has not even come close to being done by you or anyone else.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
2.3.11  Sean Treacy  replied to  Dulay @2.3.7    4 weeks ago
that other members accept the term collusion just because it's been improperly used by the uneducated and the media who dumb down their vocabulary for the masses.

There was no "collusion" to interfere with the election, nor a criminal conspiracy. The result is the same either way. 

 
 
 
Dulay
2.3.12  Dulay  replied to  Tacos! @2.3.10    4 weeks ago
Apparently nothing criminal or there would have been indictments issued as a result. Next?

Well gee, since so much has been made of the Lynch/Clinton meeting on the tarmac, innuendo seems to be enough. 

You know, just because you point at something, wink to your friends, nod knowingly, and say "harrumph!" a lot, that doesn't mean a crime happened. 

That's a bias way to characterize a meeting with the principles of a Presidential candidate and Russian operatives to get 'dirt' on an opponent.

BTW, we are talking about intent, not a crime. 

Americans used to hold their leaders to high ethical standards, no longer. You must be proud. 

Yes. I have no reason not to.

Despite all evidence to the contrary. 

I think he knows whether or not he tried to cooperate with Russians to interfere with the election.

I think he does too and that is what motivated him to obstruct justice. 

Oh and by the way, it turns out he was right.

One has to wonder why he's freaking out now...

He made no such effort. Mueller said so.

He made every effort to reap the rewards from Russia's efforts, which he was aware of and didn't report. He encouraged it but never quite got on the same page with Vlad. Much the same as his ineptitude after inauguration. That's okay though, Vlad had a plan and didn't need to conspire with Trump to fulfill it. The only thing that stopped Vlad from being fully successful was that he got CAUGHT. Now he'll have to get what he want's in increments rather than in the big fat thank you gift he wanted.  

That's right. He submitted over a million documents. He answered questions. He directed his subordinates to answer questions and to do so truthfully. In short he cooperated with the investigation while also complaining about it. Life is often complex like that.

All the while knowing that he would control what was released and who would be allowed to testify in public. During the SC investigation, he had his minions claim some vague privilege rather than answer questions from Congress. The GOP let them get away with it. Now he's refusing to allow any of them to even appear for questioning and the GOP are demanding that Congress shut down all oversight. 

Ya, it's 'complex'.

Once again you demonstrate your willingness to change the meanings of words.

What words are you claiming that changed the meaning of? Please be specific. 

BTFW, note that was a QUESTION. 

there is an extreme burden on the accusers to prove obstruction and that has not even come close to being done by you or anyone else.

Actually, Mueller did a damn good job of it. Over a hundred former Federal prosecutors agree. 

BTW, there is no such thing as an 'extreme burden on accusers'. All they need do is prove intent and Trump proved that himself in his own words. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
2.3.13  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @2.3.12    4 weeks ago

Lynch apologized and recused herself. 

People who did absolutely nothing wrong don't usually do that.

 
 
 
livefreeordie
2.3.14  livefreeordie  replied to  Dulay @2.3.12    4 weeks ago

Mueller has now exposed himself as part of the deep state conspiracy against Trump

Dershowitz: Shame on Robert Mueller for exceeding his role

“Until today, I have defended Mueller against the accusations that he is a partisan. I did not believe that he personally favored either the Democrats or the Republicans, or had a point of view on whether President Trump should be impeached. But I have now changed my mind. By putting his thumb, indeed his elbow, on the scale of justice in favor of impeachment based on obstruction of justice, Mueller has revealed his partisan bias. He also has distorted the critical role of a prosecutor in our justice system.

That determination of guilt or innocence requires a full adversarial trial with a zealous defense attorney, vigorous cross examination, exclusionary rules of evidence and other due process safeguards. Such safeguards were not present in this investigation, and so the suggestion by Mueller that Trump might well be guilty deserves no credence. His statement, so inconsistent with his long history, will be used to partisan advantage by Democrats, especially all those radicals who are seeking impeachment.

No prosecutor should ever say or do anything for the purpose of helping one party or the other. I cannot imagine a plausible reason why Mueller went beyond his report and gratuitously suggested that President Trump might be guilty, except to help Democrats in Congress and to encourage impeachment talk and action. Shame on Mueller for abusing his position of trust and for allowing himself to be used for such partisan advantage.”

https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/445983-dershowitz-shame-on-robert-mueller-for-exceeding-his-role

 
 
 
livefreeordie
2.3.15  livefreeordie  replied to  Dulay @2.3.8    4 weeks ago

WASHINGTON (Sinclair Broadcast Group) — Constitutional lawyer and Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz said the special counsel had a legally flawed approach to investigating alleged obstruction of justice by President Donald Trump.

"What jumps out at me is that the Mueller people got the law all wrong on obstruction of justice," Dershowitz told Sinclair Broadcast Group in a Thursday interview. "They came to the conclusion that a president could obstruct justice by simply exercising his constitutional authority under Article 2."

According to Dershowitz, the president was within his authority to fire the FBI director and would have been justified, under the unified executive theory, to shut down the investigation.

"The position I've taken from day one is for the president to obstruct justice, he has to go beyond his own permissible constitutional authority and engage in conduct that would be a crime for anyone else, like tampering with witnesses, obstructing a witness, paying witnesses, telling them to lie. None of that is charged against President Trump," Dershowitz said. 

Dershowitz emphasized, "In my view and I think in the view of many constitutional scholars, a president can't obstruct justice by merely exercising his constitutional authority under Article 2, firing or pardoning. And the Mueller report gets that wrong."

https://wjla.com/news/nation-world/dershowitz-on-mueller-report-obstruction-of-justice

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
2.3.16  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Texan1211 @2.3.13    4 weeks ago
Lynch apologized and recused herself.  People who did absolutely nothing wrong don't usually do that.

That's one of the most ridiculous things I've heard in a while. People who want to avoid any appearance of conflict do that. Are you saying that Jeff Sessions did have something to hide about those meetings with Russians he forgot about during his confirmation hearing? He apologized about forgetting he had those meetings. He ended up recusing himself, does that mean he was guilty of something? He did the right thing, as did Lynch, to avoid the appearance of any conflict, it was in no way an admission of guilt.

Now, those who plead the 5th are indicating they do not want to incriminate themselves, meaning they believe they are likely guilty of something or strongly believe if they tell the truth someone might blame them or consider them at least partially liable for whatever crime is being investigated. But recusal is simply not being in a position of power or decision making when you're too close to an investigation, either being a partial party for the defense or the prosecution who some might think would have trouble being fair or unbiased.

 
 
 
Tacos!
2.3.17  Tacos!  replied to  Dulay @2.3.12    4 weeks ago
innuendo seems to be enough

I agree there is too much of that.

BTW, we are talking about intent, not a crime.

Intent to commit a crime is still a crime. Again, no indictments issued and the report gave a blanket statement that no one in the Trump campaign was even trying to commit a crime.

You must be proud.

You are trolling. Please stop.

I think he does too and that is what motivated him to obstruct justice.

So, in spite of Mueller's conclusions, you still think the president or people in his campaign were trying to illegally conspire with Russians to interfere in the election? What makes you smarter than all those professional investigators in the DOJ?

that was a QUESTION

It ceased to be a question and became a straw man argument when you added "Wow."

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
2.3.18  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Tacos! @2.3.17    4 weeks ago
the report gave a blanket statement that no one in the Trump campaign was even trying to commit a crime.

Can you link that? I read the report and i do not recall any sort of blanket statement declaring no one in the Trump campaign "was even trying to committ a crime". I read about how inept many of them were and how in some cases no one would be behave so stupidly if they were trying to sureptitously comitt a crime, but that was mainly in reference to Carter Page who is a total imbecile and was clueless that he was being used by Russian government operatives.

“In interviews with the FBI before the Office’s opening, Page acknowledged that he understood that the individuals he had associated with were members of the Russian intelligence services, but he stated that he had only provided immaterial non-public information to them and that he did not view this relationship as a backchannel. Page told investigating agents that ‘the more immaterial non-public information I give them, the better for this country."- Mueller report

'I thought the more information I gave them , the better it would be for America!'

What a dumb ass. But I agree, being a dumb ass isn't illegal. If it were, Trump, Trump Jr, "Oreo" Carson, ditzy DeVos and nearly everyone in Trumps cabinet would be behind bars.

 
 
 
lib50
2.3.19  lib50  replied to  Texan1211 @2.3.13    4 weeks ago
Lynch apologized and recused herself.  People who did absolutely nothing wrong don't usually do that.

Actually, that IS what people do to avoid the appearance of conflicts of interest.  To take themselves out of the equation so they aren't the distraction. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
2.3.20  Texan1211  replied to  lib50 @2.3.19    4 weeks ago

People who don't want to appear to be in conflict don't meet with the spouse of someone under investigation.

But you already know that.

 
 
 
Dulay
2.3.21  Dulay  replied to  Sean Treacy @2.3.11    4 weeks ago
There was no "collusion" to interfere with the election, nor a criminal conspiracy. The result is the same either way.

There WAS collusion to interfere with the election. READ at least the timeline, it points out the multiple contacts between Trump minions and Russians. Manafort colluded. PERIOD full stop. 

 
 
 
Dulay
2.3.22  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @2.3.13    4 weeks ago
Lynch apologized

Link? 

and recused herself.

So did Sessions...

People who did absolutely nothing wrong don't usually do that.

Actually, ethical officials that care about their agency do it all the time. The mere 'perception' of a conflict of interest is enough to trigger that action. 

 
 
 
Dulay
2.3.23  Dulay  replied to  livefreeordie @2.3.14    4 weeks ago

Fuck Dershowitz. He has no leg to stand on when opining about ethics and the law. 

 
 
 
katrix
2.3.24  katrix  replied to  Dulay @2.3.22    4 weeks ago
Actually, ethical officials that care about their agency do it all the time. The mere 'perception' of a conflict of interest is enough to trigger that action. 

Absolutely.  Avoiding even the appearance of a conflict of interest is what all ethical people are expected to do.  As anyone who's ever had ethics training should know.

 
 
 
Texan1211
2.3.25  Texan1211  replied to  katrix @2.3.24    4 weeks ago
Absolutely. Avoiding even the appearance of a conflict of interest is what all ethical people are expected to do. As anyone who's ever had ethics training should know.

So Lynch, by your words, was unethical at a minimum.

She should have never accepted a meeting with Clinton.

But she did.

 
 
 
Texan1211
2.3.26  Texan1211  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @2.3.16    4 weeks ago
That's one of the most ridiculous things I've heard in a while. People who want to avoid any appearance of conflict do that.

Oh, come on.

People who want to avoid any appearance of conflict do NOT take meetings with the spouse of someone under investigation.

A first-year law student could tell you THAT much.

 
 
 
Dulay
2.3.27  Dulay  replied to  Tacos! @2.3.17    4 weeks ago
Intent to commit a crime is still a crime.

There can be no intent to commit a crime that doesn't exist and a campaign cozying up to foreign adversaries isn't a crime. Hence the need for Congress to investigate and legislate. 

Again, no indictments issued and the report gave a blanket statement that no one in the Trump campaign was even trying to commit a crime.

There were 37 indictments issued and multiple plea deals. As the Judge in the Flynn case stated, there are a plethora of crimes that Flynn COULD have been indicted for [as cited in the report] but wasn't because of his 'cooperation'. Most of those that took a plea COULD have been indicted for multiple crimes. 

So for a bunch of people who weren't 'even trying to commit a crime', they sure as hell managed to commit a shit load of them...

You are trolling. Please stop.

I made an educated guess that was in no way random. 

So, in spite of Mueller's conclusions, you still think the president or people in his campaign were trying to illegally conspire with Russians to interfere in the election?

Why the strawman? Where did I say anything of the sort? 

What makes you smarter than all those professional investigators in the DOJ?

Nothing.

I am however surprised that you think that DOJ investigators are professional and smart. That's doesn't fit the agenda very well. 

 
 
 
Badfish H҉a҉n҉d҉ ҉o҉f҉ ҉D҉o҉o҉m҉
2.3.28  Badfish H҉a҉n҉d҉ ҉o҉f҉ ҉D҉o҉o҉m҉  replied to  Dulay @2.3.23    4 weeks ago

I'll take Dershowitz's opinion over yours as his academic credentials lend him far more credibility.

He is one of the few that has the ability to think beyond the bounds of his personal political beliefs. 

Constitutional Scholar vs someone on the internet? I'm going with the Constitutional scholar.

 
 
 
Dulay
2.3.29  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @2.3.20    4 weeks ago
People who don't want to appear to be in conflict don't meet with the spouse of someone under investigation.
But you already know that.

People like Sessions, Manafort, Don Jr, Kushner, Flynn, Cohen, Page, Gates, Stone, and Papadopoulos who all met and corresponded with agents of a foreign adversary? 

 
 
 
Dulay
2.3.30  Dulay  replied to  katrix @2.3.24    4 weeks ago

For non Executive Branch Federal employees it's REQUIRED and they MUST report any POSSIBLE conflict. In the Judiciary, all but the SCOTUS Justices are required to recuse also. The Legislative branch have their own rules. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
2.3.31  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @2.3.29    4 weeks ago

People in government meet often with "foreign adversaries".

How did you not already know that?

Hell, even people not in govt. do it--look at Kerry.

WTF does that have to do with Lynch, who the poster claimed to not want to appear conflicted, meeting with a spouse of someone under investigation, or is that your sly way of deflecting?

 
 
 
Don Overton
2.3.32  Don Overton  replied to  Tacos! @2.3.1    4 weeks ago

Why are you even commenting since you don't understand what's in front of your eyes.

 
 
 
Dulay
2.3.33  Dulay  replied to  Badfish H҉a҉n҉d҉ ҉o҉f҉ ҉D҉o҉o҉m҉ @2.3.28    4 weeks ago

Great, you take Dershowitz. 

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/04/alan-dershowitz-defamation-lawsuit-jeffrey-epstein-abuse-case.html

I guess Dershowitz let his academic credentials slip when he brokered an illegal deal for his client. 

https://nypost.com/2019/02/21/pedophile-jeffrey-epsteins-deal-with-feds-was-illegal-judge/

Again, fuck Dershowitz. 

 
 
 
Dulay
2.3.34  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @2.3.31    4 weeks ago
People in government meet often with "foreign adversaries".
How did you not already know that?

Of those I listed, only Sessions was 'in government' and he LIED to Congress about it.

Hell, even people not in govt. do it--look at Kerry.

Ya, look at Kerry who is still working to advance diplomacy around the world rather than trying to make deals for profit or encourage foreign adversaries to attack or investigate other Americans. 

WTF does that have to do with Lynch, who the poster claimed to not want to appear conflicted, meeting with a spouse of someone under investigation,

You're the one that claimed that those who don't want to appear to be in conflict don't meet someone if there could be an appearance of conflict. Are you claiming that all of those people meeting with Russians don't cause an 'appearance of conflict'? 

or is that your sly way of deflecting?

Nope, just giving relevant examples. 

 
 
 
Don Overton
2.3.35  Don Overton  replied to  Texan1211 @2.3.26    4 weeks ago
People who want to avoid any appearance of conflict do NOT take meetings with the spouse of someone under investigation.

Totally ignorant comment

 
 
 
1stwarrior
2.3.36  1stwarrior  replied to  Dulay @2.3.8    4 weeks ago

384

 
 
 
gooseisgone
2.3.37  gooseisgone  replied to  Dulay @2.3.8    4 weeks ago
What was the 'intent' of the Trump Tower meeting?

I guess it would have been OK if they paid a million dollars for the information rather than meet.  Which is exactly what the Clinton campaign did.

 
 
 
Dulay
2.3.38  Dulay  replied to  1stwarrior @2.3.36    4 weeks ago

IMHO it's disingenuous at best to post false quotes. But hey 1st, you be you. 

 
 
 
Dulay
2.3.39  Dulay  replied to  gooseisgone @2.3.37    4 weeks ago
I guess it would have been OK if they paid a million dollars for the information rather than meet. 

You guess wrong. 

Which is exactly what the Clinton campaign did.

Bullshit. 

 
 
 
Steve Ott
2.3.40  author  Steve Ott  replied to  Sean Treacy @2.3.5    4 weeks ago
It' is silly to pretend that people who use collusion aren't talking about criminal conspiracy. 

And it is most often silly to go along with what the public says or thinks.

 
 
 
Steve Ott
2.3.41  author  Steve Ott  replied to  Sean Treacy @2.3.11    4 weeks ago

IV. CONCLUSION Because we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment, we did not draw ultimate conclusions about the President ' s conduct. The evidence we obtained about the President's actions and intent presents difficult issues that would need to be resolved if we were making a traditional prosecutorial judgment. At the same time , if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, we are unable to reach that judgment. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.
Mueller felt constrained by the DOJ position that a sitting president cannot be charged with a crime. Also note, this position has not been tested in the courts. Mueller is what may be described as a Republican's republican and a lawyer's lawyer. He felt constrained, but did leave it open for a body which can charge the President (Congress) to make a final decision.

 
 
 
KDMichigan
2.3.42  KDMichigan  replied to  Steve Ott @2.3.4    4 weeks ago
Trump was being investigated for obstruction, not collusion.

What? So President Trump was being investigated for obstruction of collusion charges but not collusion? So why is it all we heard about for two years was President Trump colluded with Russia? 

And yeah, I choose my words carefully.

24

 
 
 
Dulay
2.3.43  Dulay  replied to  Ronin2 @2.3.9    4 weeks ago
Was anything acted on? 

Please explain the relevance of your question. 

If so how did poor Mueller and his Hillary and Obama sycophants ever manage to conclude their investigation? 

With commitment. 

Firing the incompetent ass Comey doesn't count.

Why not? 

The Dems were all for that before Trump actually did it.

False. 

Then they were against it after Comey became their darling again by turning on Trump and leaking information.

How did Comey turn on Trump and what information do you allege he leaked? 

The left needs to look no further than Obama when it comes to obstruction.

Please cite examples. 

Trump needs to follow in Obama's footsteps; which it seems he is now doing by barring anyone in his administration from testify to congress; and declaring Executive Privilege on all the redacted portions of the Mueller report.

When did Obama do that? 

Next the left will be telling us how a president cannot rule the country by EO.

Trump is expanding on that constantly. You must be proud. 

 
 
 
Steve Ott
2.3.44  author  Steve Ott  replied to  livefreeordie @2.3.14    4 weeks ago

Alan Dershowitz Is Still Lying To You

Last month I I argued that Harvard Law Professor and frequent Fox guest Alan Dershowitz was lying to you by disguising his perfectly arguable view about what the law should be as a statement of what the law is. Alan Dershowitz doesn't love Trump. But he loves the camera more than he loves the truth.
 
 
 
Steve Ott
2.3.45  author  Steve Ott  replied to  KDMichigan @2.3.42    4 weeks ago

Perhaps if you read the actual report rather than getting your ideas from talking heads your eyes will widen a bit more.

See https://thenewstalkers.com/steve-ott/blog/1900/mueller-report?g=19#cm1084787

 
 
 
Dulay
2.3.46  Dulay  replied to  Steve Ott @2.3.44    4 weeks ago

He doesn't care if they're lies Steve, they conform to his agenda so they MUST be disseminated. 

 
 
 
JumpDrive
2.3.47  JumpDrive  replied to  livefreeordie @2.3.14    4 weeks ago

On the one hand, you have a professor's opinion that Mueller exceeded his authority. On the other hand --

As of Wednesday, more than 1,000 former federal prosecutors had signed a statement explaining that, in their professional judgment and based on the facts described in special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s report, President Trump would have been criminally charged with obstruction of justice if he were not the president.

 
 
 
Texan1211
2.3.48  Texan1211  replied to  JumpDrive @2.3.47    4 weeks ago

And yet, Democrats STILL won't impeach him.

Weird shit right there.

 
 
 
Steve Ott
2.3.49  author  Steve Ott  replied to  Badfish H҉a҉n҉d҉ ҉o҉f҉ ҉D҉o҉o҉m҉ @2.3.28    4 weeks ago

See https://thenewstalkers.com/steve-ott/blog/1900/mueller-report?g=17#cm1084816

and read the link. Ken White was a federal prosecutor and is now  a first amendment attorney. He has some issues with Dershowitz. 

While Dershowitz was/ is a respected scholar, he seems to have become something else entirely recently.

 
 
 
Steve Ott
2.3.50  author  Steve Ott  replied to  1stwarrior @2.3.36    4 weeks ago

Ah First. You used to make such great statements, and now this?

I'm very disappointed.

Sloganeering just doesn't fit you.

 
 
 
MrFrost
2.3.51  MrFrost  replied to  livefreeordie @2.3.14    4 weeks ago
Mueller has now exposed himself as part of the deep state conspiracy against Trump

Fox news proved that there is no deep state. May want to look that up.

You are posting an OPINION article, btw.

 
 
 
Dulay
2.3.52  Dulay  replied to  Steve Ott @2.3.49    4 weeks ago

Dershowitz became something else quite a while ago. 

 
 
 
MrFrost
2.3.53  MrFrost  replied to  Texan1211 @2.3.26    4 weeks ago
People who want to avoid any appearance of conflict do NOT take meetings with the spouse of someone under investigation.

But apparently meeting with russian agents, in secret, then lying about the content of the meeting...of course, all of that is after saying the meeting never happened in the first place is all totally ok, right? Seems weird, if it was all on the up-n-up, why would trump and his idiot kid, (and everyone else that went to the meeting), lie repeatedly about one simple meeting? 

In fact, trump lied about ALL the meetings with russians, didn't he? Yea, he did, he said himself..."Not me nor anyone in my campaign had any meetings with any russians!!!!!"

But....yea, that too was another huge lie, wasn't it? Yea, it was. 

And you want to complain that clinton met with lynch? Bill, Hillary, Lynch...any of these people still working for the US government? No. So who gives a fuck? 

A first-year law student could tell you THAT much.

Know what else they could tell you? That a person that has told over 9,000 lies in two yeas has a LOT to hide. 

 
 
 
bccrane
2.3.54  bccrane  replied to  Texan1211 @2.3.48    4 weeks ago

It may not be so weird.  As pointed out by Mr. Ott in 2.3.41 Mueller is a republicans republican, but he is also a never Trumper.  Mueller wanted impeachment proceedings to begin right after his report came out, but got frustrated by Pelosi refusing to begin them, so I need to tip my hat to Mueller and say "Well Played" by coming out with a press conference and, just like the conclusion statement in 2.3.41, take a stand neither one way or the other and present the situation in such a way to get the democrats to pressure Pelosi into starting the impeachment process, but then ends the press conference by not taking questions and basically says don't bother me anymore with it.

Pelosi on the other hand, looking at higher aspirations, feels it is too late in Trump's first term to oust him and then Pence, she needs more time as president then just a month or two before being removed by another election. So I imagine right now she is hoping Trump gets a second term, then, if she does it right, she can be president much longer without going through the messy election process (which she would lose miserably).  Note, if she can find a way to oust Pence while denying him a new VP pick she could become the president.  

Mueller wants the impeachment proceedings to start now to give republicans a better chance to retake the house and if Trump is removed or resigns there is still hope that Pence could win or at convention someone else could be nominated.

 
 
 
Dulay
2.3.55  Dulay  replied to  Steve Ott @2.3.41    4 weeks ago

The Nixon impeachment was much the same except it was the grand jury that sent Congress the allegations. The Grand Jury and Judge Sirica gave Congress the 'statements of fact' and the uderlying documentation, testimony and WH tapes. It was up to Congress to go through the evidence and decide what to do with it. 

The Summary is damning, just like Volume II of the Mueller report is damning. 

That documentation is here: 

https://www.archives.gov/research/investigations/watergate/roadmap

 
 
 
Texan1211
2.3.56  Texan1211  replied to  Don Overton @2.3.35    4 weeks ago

Your inability to process what is in my post doesn't concern me in the least.

 
 
 
Greg Jones
2.3.57  Greg Jones  replied to  Dulay @2.3.21    4 weeks ago

Contacts don't imply collusion, only evil little imaginations do that.

If there was collusion, Mueller would have put it into the report.  

 
 
 
Dulay
2.3.58  Dulay  replied to  Greg Jones @2.3.57    4 weeks ago
Contacts don't imply collusion,

From the report:

Separately, on August 2, 2016 , Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort met in New York City with his long-time business associate Konstantin Kilimnik, who the FBI assesses to have ties to Russian intelligence. Kilimnik requested the meeting to deliver in person a peace plan for
Ukraine that Manafort acknowledged to the Special Counsel's Office was a "backdoor" way for Russia to control part of eastern Ukraine; both men believed the plan would require candidate Trump 's assent to succeed (were he to be elected President).
They also discussed the status of the Trump Campaign and Manafort's strategy for winning Democratic votes in Midwestern states.
Months before that meeting, Manafort had caused internal polling data to be shared with Kilimnik, and the sharing continued for some period of time after their August meeting.

What does Manafort's meeting 'imply'? 

only evil little imaginations do that.

That's why I've based my comments on FACTS, not imaginations. 

If there was collusion, Mueller would have put it into the report.  

As you can see from the above quote from his report, Mueller DID document collusion. 

 
 
 
JumpDrive
2.3.59  JumpDrive  replied to  Texan1211 @2.3.48    4 weeks ago
And yet, Democrats STILL won't impeach him. Weird shit right there.

Are you really that simple? With the current absolute servility of Republican Senators to Trump, conviction is unlikely. Stupid people would see a failure to convict as exoneration. I mean really, many conservatives read the Mueller Report as an exoneration; even after Mueller's repeated attempts to correct that notion. Personally, unless something forces Republican Senators’ hands, I would reserve impeachment as an information weapon to be used closer to the election.

 
 
 
Texan1211
2.3.60  Texan1211  replied to  JumpDrive @2.3.59    4 weeks ago
With the current absolute servility of Republican Senators to Trump, conviction is unlikely. Stupid people would see a failure to convict as exoneration. I mean really, many conservatives read the Mueller Report as an exoneration; even after Mueller's repeated attempts to correct that notion. Personally, unless something forces Republican Senators’ hands, I would reserve impeachment as an information weapon to be used closer to the election.

I feel Dems should impeach or stop yammering on and on and on and on about it.

Shit or get off the pot.

Are you really that simple?

You can take your insults and shove them somewhere appropriate.

 
 
 
Texan1211
2.3.61  Texan1211  replied to  JumpDrive @2.3.59    4 weeks ago
With the current absolute servility of Republican Senators to Trump, conviction is unlikely. Stupid people would see a failure to convict as exoneration

Impeachment trial in the Senate isn't supposed to be a rubber stamp for the House. And why do you care so much what stupid people think? That is counterproductive and a waste of time.

 
 
 
Ronin2
2.3.62  Ronin2  replied to  Dulay @2.3.43    4 weeks ago
Please explain the relevance of your question. 

Obama acted, Trump talked about it. Yet you claim Obama didn't obstruct; and Trump did.

With commitment. 

Take off you TDDS glasses. He faced 0 challenges, except from the Russians that schooled him not to come to court unprepared.

Why not? 

TDDS. Pure and simple.

False. 

More TDDS. Please seek help. Now. 

https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/opinion/the-conversation/sd-before-trump-fired-fbi-director-james-comey-democrats-wanted-his-dismissal-20170510-story.html

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/democrats-cry-foul-comey-firing-previously-calling-resign/story?id=47352885

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer of New York

"I do not have confidence in him any longer," Schumertold Bloombergon Nov. 2.

"To restore my faith, I am going to have to sit down and talk to him and get an explanation for why he did this," he added.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi of California

"Maybe he's not in the right job," shesaid to CNNon Nov. 2. "I think that we have to just get through this election and just see what the casualties are along the way."

Pelosi continued that Comey's letter to Congress about the review of Clinton's emails was a "mistake."

Former Sen. Harry Reid of Nevada

In October, Reid suggested Comey's actions "demonstrated a disturbing double standard for the treatment of sensitive information" and may have violated "the Hatch Act, which bars FBI officials from using their official authority to influence an election,"in a letterto the director.

Reid wrote that he has "been a supporter" of Comey's and "led the fight" to get him confirmed, as he believed Comey was a "principled public servant."

"With the deepest regret, I now see that I was wrong," Reid added.

Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt.

Sanderstold ABC Newsjust before Trump's inauguration that it "would not be a bad thing for the American people" if Comey stepped down.

"I think that Comey acted in an outrageous way during the campaign," said Sanders. "No one can say that this was decisive or this is what elected Trump, but clearly his behavior during the campaign in terms of what he said during the week or two before the election was unacceptable."

At the time, Sanders decried that there was no investigation into possible collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign, a situation that has changed.

Rep. Steve Cohen of Tennessee

In October, Cohen called on Comey to "resign his position effective immediately."

"If Director Comey cares about the bureau and the rule of law … I'm sure upon reflection of this action, he will submit his letter of resignation for the nation's good," Cohen wrote.

He bashed Comey's letter as "plainly premature, careless and unprecedented."

On Tuesday, after Comey's firing, Cohen said in a statement that he earlier hoped Comey would receive the Profiles in Courage Award for his Russia investigation.

Rep. Jerry Nadler of New York

"The president can fire him for cause and ought to. He violated all the guidelines and put his thumb on the scale of an election. Whether it was decisive or not is a different question," Nadler told CNN on Nov. 14.

Rep. Maxine Waters of California

"All I can tell you is the FBI director has no credibility. That's it," Waterstold reportersafter leaving a Jan. 13 classified briefing on Russia's meddling in the 2016 election.

In an interview with MSNBC on Wednesday, she argued that Trump should not have fired Comey in the middle of the Russia probe and as a result "basically has interfered with an investigation where he may be implicated."

Waters added, "If [Clinton] had won the White House, I believe that, given what he did to her and what he tried to do, she should have fired him."

Rep. Hank Johnson of Georgia

"My confidence in the FBI director's ability to lead this agency has been shaken," said Johnson, after the Jan. 13 closed-door briefing on the Russia investigation for House members.

In a statement released Wednesday, he called Comey's firing "unwarranted" and argued it "suggests an attempt to squelch an investigation in an effort to cover up wrongdoing."

Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz of Florida

"I think Director Comey has taken enough actions that call into question his ability to continue to serve credibly," she said during a CNN appearance on Jan. 17. "I would lean in the direction that he no longer is able to serve in a neutral and credible way."

After Comey's firing, Wasserman Schultz, a former chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee, said that it was "a dark day for justice in America."

"The conduct of FBI Director James Comey before the 2016 election was certainly disturbing and undoubtedly deserved criticism and scrutiny," she said in a statement. "But the reasoning and timing behind this firing is absolutely preposterous and unbelievable."

Google is a great aid for those with horrendous memories; but it cannot cure TDDS.

How did Comey turn on Trump and what information do you allege he leaked? 

You are a fountain of TDDS.

https://www.apnews.com/dda6eac0eb2b4c8c9ddbfee14f891ccd

Trump was referring to the memos Comey wrote documenting his conversations with Trump before he was fired. Comey asked a friend to release them to the press.

Comey has said he hoped the memos’ release would lead to the appointment of a special prosecutor to investigate Russian election meddling and potential coordination with Trump’s campaign. The memos, which were obtained this week by the AP, were unclassified, though some portions were blacked out as classified.

Yet Trump and Comey were clearly on the same page about leaks, even if they weren’t quite in agreement on whom to hold accountable for them.

Seriously, it is almost like you ignore anything you don't agree with.  Just black it out in your mind; and pretend it doesn't exist.

Please cite examples. When did Obama do that? 

Obviously you didn't read my other links; we have had this conversation before- and you have been proven wrong each time.

https://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/16/us/politics/obama-official-wont-testify-to-congress.html

he White House said Tuesday night that it would refuse to allow its director of political strategy to testify Wednesday before a Republican-led House committee investigating whether the administration had illegally conducted political activity in the West Wing.

In a letter to Representative Darrell Issa, the chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, the president’s top lawyer said that as a member of the executive branch the political director, David Simas, had immunity from being compelled to testify before Congress.

Mr. Issa’s committee subpoenaed Mr. Simas last week, contending that the White House should not have opened the Office of Political Strategy and Outreach this year. Mr. Issa told the White House in May that “the American people have a right to know if their tax dollars are being spent to support congressional campaigns during the 2014 midterm elections in violation of federal law.”

In a statement on Tuesday, Mr. Issa said that the decision to prevent Mr. Simas from testifying was “another attack on our nation’s Constitution” and that he planned to examine whether the president intended to assert executive privilege.

https://www.frontpagemag.com/point/273574/remember-when-obama-admin-refused-allow-officials-daniel-greenfield

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/federal-eye/wp/2014/07/16/white-house-defies-congressional-subpoena-but-hearing-set-to-continue/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.166deed379dd

https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/244069-cruz-slams-obama-officials-for-refusing-to-testify

https://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/white-house-benghazi-obama-224813

The White House and the House Select Committee on Benghazi are at a standoff over whether President Barack Obama should answer a series of questions about the 2012 terrorist attack in Libya that left four Americans dead.

Neil Eggleston, counsel to the president, blasted the committee for sending the president a list of questions about the attack — an inquiry the administration deemed inappropriate and a partisan attempt to frame the White House as uncooperative.

Eggleston has encouraged Obama not to answer the committee’s questions “because of the implications of his response on the constitutional separation of powers,” according to a letter sent Saturday to Chairman Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) and obtained by POLITICO.

“If the president were to answer your questions, his response would suggest that Congress has the unilateral power to demand answers from the president about his official acts,” the letter reads.

Eggleston also accused the panel of asking questions it already knew the answer to — something the committee denies.

And Gowdy's panel criticized the White House's response as unhelpful to its investigation. Committee members have been trying to answer several unresolved questions before releasing their final report in the coming weeks.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/06/politics/fact-check-donald-trump-obama-letter-requests/index.html

During the Fast and Furious botched weapons sting investigation, Republicans on the House Oversight Committee in 2012recommendedthat then-Attorney General Eric Holder be cited for contempt of Congress for failing to turn over requested documents. They made the recommendation after Obama asserted executive privilege over some documents sought by the committee.
Buttwo years later, under court order, the Obama Justice Department did turn over nearly 65,000 pages of Fast and Furious-related documents.
No obstruction there. Nothing to see, move along. Trump is forcing the Dems to jump through the same hoops that Obama made the Republicans.
 
 
 
JumpDrive
2.3.63  JumpDrive  replied to  Texan1211 @2.3.61    4 weeks ago
And why do you care so much what stupid people think?

"I did not mean that Conservatives are generally stupid; I meant, that stupid persons are generally Conservative. I believe that to be so obvious and undeniable a fact that I hardly think any hon. Gentleman will question it."

-- John Stuart Mill ~1850
 
 
 
JumpDrive
2.3.64  JumpDrive  replied to  Texan1211 @2.3.60    4 weeks ago
I feel Dems should impeach or stop yammering on and on and on and on about it.

Shit or get off the pot.

Are you really that simple?

You can take your insults and shove them somewhere appropriate.

Sorry for the insult, but in reading your other posts I would not think you would be blind to the complexities of this issue. Trump commits impeachable offenses pretty much monthly, but he has managed to castrate most Republican Senators & Representatives. This makes dealing with his corruption very difficult, and not the simple decision you think it should be.

 
 
 
Dulay
2.3.65  Dulay  replied to  Ronin2 @2.3.62    4 weeks ago
Obama acted,

Proof? 

Trump talked about it.

Trump directed others. It's ironic that none of y'all are talking about just how many of Trump's minions refused to do what he directed them to do. 

Yet you claim Obama didn't obstruct;

Where did I claim that? 

and Trump did.

Read the report, he did. 

Take off you TDDS glasses.

Cut the crap. Stop deflecting and answer the question. 

Google is a great aid for those with horrendous memories; but it cannot cure TDDS.

You said Democrats were all for firing Comey and only have 2 of them calling for Comey to be fired. 

Oh and again, cut the crap. If you are incapable of posting a reply without personal attacks, move on. 

Obviously you didn't read my other links; we have had this conversation before- and you have been proven wrong each time.

Delusional. 

Perhaps you'd like to link the report that Issa submitted on his oh so fucking important Oversight Investigation. Or maybe a link to the vote to hold David Simas in contempt. How about a bill that he passed to mitigate the issue? Anything? 

Oh and BTFW, did Simas sit down for an interview with a Special Counsel for 30 HOURS before the WH Counsel told Issa to fuck off? Was there public evidence that Obama directed Simas to violate the law.

You've got one WEAK example while Trump just proclaimed blanket executive privilege over the entire Mueller report AND most of it's principle witnesses. 

The White House and the House Select Committee on Benghazi are at a standoff

Did Obama say for 2 years that he wanted to testify before the Committee? Did Obama refuse to allow Clinton to testify before the Gowdy's committee? Did Gowdy find ANY wrongdoing by Obama or Clinton in his report? Did Obama claim Executive privilege over the report and it's underlying documents? DO tell me all about the similarities of these events...

No obstruction there. Nothing to see, move along.

Holder testified to the Judiciary Committee MULTIPLE times and as you link shows, they turned over nearly 65,000 documents. Obama claimed Executive Privilege on a select number of documents.

Are you positing that ALL claims of Executive Privilege equate to obstruction of justice? 

Trump is forcing the Dems to jump through the same hoops that Obama made the Republicans.

Total bullshit. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
2.3.66  Texan1211  replied to  JumpDrive @2.3.63    4 weeks ago
"I did not mean that Conservatives are generally stupid; I meant, that stupid persons are generally Conservative. I believe that to be so obvious and undeniable a fact that I hardly think any hon. Gentleman will question it."

Ronald Reagan:

Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn't so.

 
 
 
Texan1211
2.3.67  Texan1211  replied to  JumpDrive @2.3.64    4 weeks ago
Sorry for the insult, but in reading your other posts I would not think you would be blind to the complexities of this issue.

If you are attempting to apologize, it would be wise to not insult again IN that "apology".

You seem to think, based on at least two posts now, that people who disagree with you simply don't understand things.

rump commits impeachable offenses pretty much monthly, but he has managed to castrate most Republican Senators & Representatives. This makes dealing with his corruption very difficult, and not the simple decision you think it should be.

If they are impeachable offenses, then freaking do it instead of jabbering about it. 

Pretty hard to try to take "the moral high ground" when you whine about something and then do NOTHING about it.

 
 
 
Dulay
2.3.68  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @2.3.67    3 weeks ago
If you are attempting to apologize, it would be wise to not insult again IN that "apology".

My reading of that comment is that based on your prior comments, your comment was disappointing. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
2.3.69  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @2.3.68    3 weeks ago

That's nice.

It wasn't to you, it was to me, and I took him at his word.

 
 
 
gooseisgone
2.3.70  gooseisgone  replied to  Dulay @2.3.39    3 weeks ago
You guess wrong.

Really...…………..Trump campaign meets with foreigner to get dirt on Clinton, Clinton pays foreigner for dirt on Trump explain the difference

Bullshit

What in the hell do you think they were paying for!!!!!!!!!!

 
 
 
Dulay
2.3.71  Dulay  replied to  gooseisgone @2.3.70    3 weeks ago
Really...…………..

Yes really. 

Trump campaign meets with foreigner to get dirt on Clinton, Clinton pays foreigner for dirt on Trump explain the difference

The difference is that Trump's campaign met with RUSSIANS and disseminated the information they hacked. Trump read the Russian hacks at his rallies. 

The Clinton campaign paid an AMERICAN company, who paid a BRITISH citizen. 

What in the hell do you think they were paying for!!!!!!!!!!

You said they paid millions for the information, prove it. 

 
 
 
gooseisgone
2.3.72  gooseisgone  replied to  Dulay @2.3.71    3 weeks ago
met with RUSSIANS and disseminated the information they hacked

WTF are you talking about!!!!!!!! Please sight your claim in the Mueller report.

The Clinton campaign paid an AMERICAN company, who paid a BRITISH citizen. 

Ha ha, YGTOFKM that makes it ok.

You said they paid millions for the information, prove it.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/25/us/politics/steele-dossier-trump-expained.html

 
 
 
Dulay
2.3.73  Dulay  replied to  gooseisgone @2.3.72    3 weeks ago
WTF are you talking about!!!!!!!! Please sight your claim in the Mueller report.

Start on page 36:

Multiple individuals affiliated with the Trump Campaign also promoted IRA tweets (discussed below).

Page 59: e. Donald Trump Jr. Interaction with WikiLeaks

Donald Trump Jr. had direct electronic communications with WikiLeaks during the
campaign period

Then there's this:

Ha ha, YGTOFKM that makes it ok.

You asked me to explain the difference, I can't understand it for you. 

From your NYT link: 

with only one payment — of $66,500 — for “research consulting” from the D.N.C.

Thanks for playing. 

 
 
 
Steve Ott
2.3.74  author  Steve Ott  replied to  Ronin2 @2.3.9    3 weeks ago
Next the left will be telling us how a president cannot rule the country by EO

You mean like the Republicans during the Obama years? They hated executive orders then, now, not a peep.

 
 
 
PJ
3  PJ    4 weeks ago

Doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results is the definition of insanity.

With that said, it is pointless to explain facts to those who support trump and think this time they will finally understand or accept those facts.

Move on.  They are not worth it.

Steve, thank you for the link.  My plan is to begin reading the report while on the plane today.

 
 
 
It Is ME
3.1  It Is ME  replied to  PJ @3    4 weeks ago
Doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results is the definition of insanity.

Yes it is !

Extending things past the over 2 year mark of "NOTHING TO SEE HERE", is INSANE !

 
 
 
MrFrost
3.1.1  MrFrost  replied to  It Is ME @3.1    4 weeks ago
Extending things past the over 2 year mark of "NOTHING TO SEE HERE", is INSANE !

I am sure you complained as bitterly when benghazi was investigated 9 times over 5 years, right? 

Sure...jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
It Is ME
3.1.2  It Is ME  replied to  MrFrost @3.1.1    4 weeks ago

I don't do Benghazi. Why do you ?

Besides, Benghazi wasn't brought up in the Mueller report....or was it ? jrSmiley_87_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
devangelical
4  devangelical    4 weeks ago

bwah ha ha. tell that to the benghazi and HRC email choruses. don't bother explaining it to the birthers, it'll take the rest of your life.

 
 
 
Steve Ott
5  author  Steve Ott    4 weeks ago

The whole purpose of posting the link was so that all could read it for themselves and come to their own conclusions.

The report is searchable, because non-searchable sucks.

 
 
 
Dulay
5.1  Dulay  replied to  Steve Ott @5    4 weeks ago
 
 
 
Steve Ott
5.1.1  author  Steve Ott  replied to  Dulay @5.1    3 weeks ago

Thanks. Hadn't seen this over there. I like Lawfare.

 
 
 
Dulay
5.1.2  Dulay  replied to  Steve Ott @5.1.1    3 weeks ago

So do I, they don't blow smoke and help layman to get it...

 
 
 
Dulay
6  Dulay    4 weeks ago

So let's talk about it. Here is an example that is so blatant that I challenge anyone to refute that the following is obstruction of justice.  

Efforts to have McGahn deny that the President had ordered him to have the Special Counsel removed.

In early 2018, the press reported that the President had directed McGahn to have the Special Counsel removed in June 2017 and that McGahn had threatened to resign rather than carry out the order. The President reacted to the news stories by directing White House officials to tell McGahn to dispute the story and create a record stating he had not been ordered to have the Special Counsel removed. McGahn told those officials that the media reports were accurate in stating that the President had directed McGahn to have the Special Counsel removed.

The President then met with McGahn in the Oval Office and again pressured him to deny the reports. In the same meeting , the President also asked McGahn why he had told the Special Counsel about the President ' s effort to remove the Special Counsel and why McGahn took notes of his conversations with the President. McGahn refused to back away from what he remembered happening and perceived the President to be testing his mettle.

Trump orders a minion to tell McGahn to fabricate a story and 'create a record' of that fabrication to cover Trump's ass. 

Remember, any 'record' that McGahn would have fabricated would be a WH Counsel document. Trump wasn't telling McGahn that he needed a note for his teacher. IF McGahn had done what Trump wanted, McGahn would have been conspiring to obstruct justice. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
6.1  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @6    4 weeks ago

So what again is stopping Democrats from impeaching Trump?

According to you, there is more than enough evidence.

Are they just too ball-less to actually DO IT?

 
 
 
Dulay
6.1.1  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @6.1    4 weeks ago
So what again is stopping Democrats from impeaching Trump?

According to you, there is more than enough evidence.

Are they just too ball-less to actually DO IT?

Did you miss my reply to you in 2.3.22 Tex? You like to make comments about others failing to back up their claims when called out so I'd think you'd be the first on jump at the chance to support your own. 

Now, I posted a challenge in the comment you pretend to be replying to. Take it up or move on. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
6.1.2  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @6.1.1    4 weeks ago

A simple "Yes, they don't have the guts to do it" would have sufficed.

 
 
 
Steve Ott
6.1.3  author  Steve Ott  replied to  Texan1211 @6.1    4 weeks ago

The House (Democrats) can bring charges.

The Senate (Republicans) try the charges.

Where do you think that will go, despite any evidence?

Our government is paralyzed and the president attempts to rule by fiat. Plain and simple. The democrats complain now about what the republicans complained about in the Obama years.

All of the balls are in the presidents pocket, and he only plays pocket pool.

 
 
 
Texan1211
6.1.4  Texan1211  replied to  Steve Ott @6.1.3    4 weeks ago
The House (Democrats) can bring charges.
The Senate (Republicans) try the charges.

Yes, that is how impeachment works.

Where do you think that will go, despite any evidence?

No where, because I think the Dems lack the cojones to even do it.

Our government is paralyzed and the president attempts to rule by fiat. Plain and simple. The democrats complain now about what the republicans complained about in the Obama years.

By fiat? How very melodramatic!

All of the balls are in the presidents pocket, and he only plays pocket pool.

Reminds me of an old joke. Trump isn't playing pocket pool, he is playing elevator.

 
 
 
Dulay
6.1.5  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @6.1.2    4 weeks ago

A simple "I can't refute that that is obstruction of justice" would have sufficed Tex. 

As an added bonus, it wouldn't have been a deflection. 

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
6.1.6  Freedom Warrior  replied to  Dulay @6.1.5    4 weeks ago

Your terminology is inaccurate, it’s properly referred to as obstruction of injustice.

 
 
 
Dulay
6.1.7  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @6.1.4    4 weeks ago
By fiat? How very melodramatic!

You must have forgotten that Trump just closed down all cooperation with Democratic leadership, by fiat, because Nancy was mean to him. Talk about melodramatic. 

 
 
 
Dulay
6.1.8  Dulay  replied to  Freedom Warrior @6.1.6    4 weeks ago

So you're incapable of meeting the challenge. Got ya. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
6.1.9  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @6.1.7    4 weeks ago

deleted for context

 
 
 
Dulay
6.1.10  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @6.1.9    4 weeks ago

deleted for context

 
 
 
Texan1211
6.1.11  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @6.1.10    4 weeks ago

deleted for context

 
 
 
Dulay
6.1.12  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @6.1.11    4 weeks ago

Deleted for context

 
 
 
Texan1211
6.1.13  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @6.1.12    4 weeks ago

deleted for context!

 
 
 
Dulay
6.1.14  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @6.1.13    4 weeks ago

.

deleted for context

 
 
 
MrFrost
6.1.15  MrFrost  replied to  Texan1211 @6.1    4 weeks ago
So what again is stopping Democrats from impeaching Trump?

Mostly that the vast majority of republicans are spineless cowards who are too busy licking trumps nuts and begging for a handout than actually doing what is best for the country. 

 
 
 
MrFrost
6.1.16  MrFrost  replied to  Dulay @6.1.7    4 weeks ago
because Nancy was mean to him.

Trump has the maturity of a 10 year old. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
6.1.17  Texan1211  replied to  MrFrost @6.1.15    4 weeks ago
Mostly that the vast majority of republicans are spineless cowards who are too busy licking trumps nuts and begging for a handout than actually doing what is best for the country.

Not sure you are aware of how impeachment works.

The Democrats control the House. They must impeach. Not one thing the GOP can do to stop that.

Please stop blaming the GOP for the gutless Democratic wonders in Congress.

 
 
 
Texan1211
6.1.18  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @6.1.14    4 weeks ago

deleted for context

 
 
 
Dulay
6.1.19  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @6.1.17    4 weeks ago
The Democrats control the House.

That restricts GOP Congressmen from proposing articles of impeachment HOW Tex? 

 
 
 
Texan1211
6.1.20  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @6.1.19    4 weeks ago

Deleted for context

 
 
 
Dulay
6.1.21  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @6.1.18    4 weeks ago
Have a nice wait!

Which tells me that you're incapable of supporting your BS claim about Lynch and don't have the gonads it takes to admit it was just that, bullshit. 

I would think that would make you less likely to continue to pursue others that fail to support their BS claims but alas, I doubt it. 

It drips with hypocrisy but hey Tex, you be you. 

 
 
 
Dulay
6.1.22  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @6.1.20    4 weeks ago

You claimed that the Dems must impeach.

What's stopping the GOP from doing it? 

BTFW, is the example I cite obstruction of justice or not? 

 
 
 
Texan1211
6.1.23  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @6.1.21    4 weeks ago

I am always me. I don't pretend to be something I am not.

If my posts offend, please feel free to ignore them.

Because it bothers me not what you "think".

 
 
 
Texan1211
6.1.24  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @6.1.22    4 weeks ago

Only a damn fool or an idiot would think the GOP is going to doo the Dems dirty work for them.

Dems haven't got the balls, plain and simple.

That is why they TALK about impeachment and DO shit about it.

 
 
 
Dulay
6.1.25  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @6.1.23    4 weeks ago
I am always me.

As the saying goes: more's the pity.  

 
 
 
Dulay
6.1.26  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @6.1.24    4 weeks ago

[Deleted] how about answering my question. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
6.1.27  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @6.1.25    4 weeks ago
As the saying goes: more's the pity. Aw. How sweet!
 
 
 
Texan1211
6.1.28  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @6.1.26    4 weeks ago
Speaking of the lack of balls

Yes, that's right, we were talking about Democrats.

Very good, Dulay!

jrSmiley_81_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Dulay
6.1.29  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @6.1.28    4 weeks ago
Yes, that's right, we were talking about Democrats.

Actually, no Tex, this thread started with a challenge which you've been incapable of meeting. YOU tried to deflect.

I reminded you about the claim you made and the link you failed to provide. After seeing you continue to demand proof for a claim from another member in another seed, I felt it only right to call you on it. It's obvious that you can't meet the standards you demand of others. Well done. 

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
6.1.30  Freedom Warrior  replied to  Dulay @6.1.8    4 weeks ago

You must be referring to my inability to stop laughing at comments such as yours.

 
 
 
Texan1211
6.1.31  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @6.1.29    4 weeks ago

You act like a puppy with a new toy. 

Fixated.

Have fun!

 
 
 
Dulay
6.1.32  Dulay  replied to  Freedom Warrior @6.1.30    4 weeks ago
You must be referring to my inability to stop laughing at comments such as yours.

No, I'm not referring to your lack of self control. 

Since you've gotten a grip on yourself, perhaps you can address the topic of this thread and seed. Meet the challenge or move on. 

 
 
 
livefreeordie
6.1.34  livefreeordie  replied to  MrFrost @6.1.15    4 weeks ago

What’s best for the country is to be rid of the anti American Marxist statist Democrats

 
 
 
Tessylo
6.1.35  Tessylo  replied to  livefreeordie @6.1.34    4 weeks ago

marxists, statists, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
6.1.36  Freedom Warrior  replied to  Dulay @6.1.32    4 weeks ago

jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Dulay
6.1.37  Dulay  replied to  Freedom Warrior @6.1.36    4 weeks ago

That is the most cogent comment you've posted in this seed. 

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
6.1.38  Freedom Warrior  replied to  Dulay @6.1.37    4 weeks ago

How would you know?

 
 
 
Dulay
6.1.39  Dulay  replied to  Freedom Warrior @6.1.38    4 weeks ago

Osmosis. 

 
 
 
Steve Ott
6.1.40  author  Steve Ott  replied to  livefreeordie @6.1.34    3 weeks ago
What’s best for the country is to be rid of the anti American Marxist statist Democrats

And what of corpratist Republicans? Neither ideology has a good ending for individuals.

And, pray tell, where do you find that in the report? I expect the answer is no where. So then, what do you think the purpose of this seed was?

 
 
 
Eat The Press Do Not Read It
6.1.41  Eat The Press Do Not Read It  replied to  Dulay @6.1.1    3 days ago

"Ball-less-ness" in CONGRESS is on full display on the other side of the aisle, "The Republicans" side.

The GOP has become the Government of Putin.

 
 
 
MUVA
6.1.42  MUVA  replied to  Eat The Press Do Not Read It @6.1.41    3 days ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
Dulay
6.2  Dulay  replied to  Dulay @6    4 weeks ago

I note that not one person has actually address the quote that I posted from the report or accepted the challenge to argue that the example isn't obstruction. 

This tells me that at least those that have replied to me in this thread know that Trump committed obstruction of justice.