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.
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.
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.
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 !
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.
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 ?
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" !
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.
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 !
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.
After the next investigation finds no evidence of collusion, the Democrats will seek impeachment for canoodling.
Will that be before or after the Republicans seek another investigation into investigating the investigation about the investigation on Clinton's Email.
Damnit, beat me to it... GMTA.
I think what you meant to say was "squirrel!"
Aren't we about due for another look at Benghazi?
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.
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.
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 that is a utterly uninformed statement, you should review the reports of the 10 investigations conducted in Congress over 4 years.
A special counsel only has the investigative and legal powers documented in his/her appointment. They have NO inherent Constitutional authority. The Congress DOES.
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.
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.
You don't even know what we're talking about KD.
Carry on...
Think I was. Ronin comment right before yours.
Benghazi... Another Government shit show. I'm not even going there...
Besides we are off topic maybe.
But that isn't the comment I replied to IS it KD? Do you need instruction on how to follow a thread?
Naw, they will just investigate the same thing over and over again, you know....BENGHAZI!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
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.
I don't get why you say that or what you're point is.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Yes, I agree.
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.
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.
What was the 'intent' of the Trump Tower meeting?
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.
Are you actually claiming that Trump is intelligent enough to evaluate his actions and come to a cogent legal conclusion?
As the report spells out, Trump did a hell of a lot more than bitch and moan.
So your posit is that if an investigation can be concluded, no obstruction could have occurred? Wow.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
There was no "collusion" to interfere with the election, nor a criminal conspiracy. The result is the same either way.
Well gee, since so much has been made of the Lynch/Clinton meeting on the tarmac, innuendo seems to be enough.
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.
Despite all evidence to the contrary.
I think he does too and that is what motivated him to obstruct justice.
One has to wonder why he's freaking out now...
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.
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'.
What words are you claiming that changed the meaning of? Please be specific.
BTFW, note that was a QUESTION.
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.
Lynch apologized and recused herself.
People who did absolutely nothing wrong don't usually do that.
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.”
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."
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.
I agree there is too much of that.
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 are trolling. Please stop.
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?
It ceased to be a question and became a straw man argument when you added "Wow."
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.
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.
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.
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.
Link?
So did Sessions...
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.
Fuck Dershowitz. He has no leg to stand on when opining about ethics and the law.
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.
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.
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.
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...
I made an educated guess that was in no way random.
Why the strawman? Where did I say anything of the sort?
Nothing.
I am however surprised that you think that DOJ investigators are professional and smart. That's doesn't fit the agenda very well.
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?
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.
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?
Why are you even commenting since you don't understand what's in front of your eyes.
Great, you take Dershowitz.
I guess Dershowitz let his academic credentials slip when he brokered an illegal deal for his client.
Again, fuck Dershowitz.
Of those I listed, only Sessions was 'in government' and he LIED to Congress about it.
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.
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'?
Nope, just giving relevant examples.
Totally ignorant comment
IMHO it's disingenuous at best to post false quotes. But hey 1st, you be you.
You guess wrong.
Bullshit.
And it is most often silly to go along with what the public says or thinks.
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.
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?
Please explain the relevance of your question.
With commitment.
Why not?
False.
How did Comey turn on Trump and what information do you allege he leaked?
Please cite examples.
When did Obama do that?
Trump is expanding on that constantly. You must be proud.
Alan Dershowitz Is Still Lying To You
Perhaps if you read the actual report rather than getting your ideas from talking heads your eyes will widen a bit more.
See
He doesn't care if they're lies Steve, they conform to his agenda so they MUST be disseminated.
On the one hand, you have a professor's opinion that Mueller exceeded his authority. On the other hand --
And yet, Democrats STILL won't impeach him.
Weird shit right there.
See
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.
Ah First. You used to make such great statements, and now this?
I'm very disappointed.
Sloganeering just doesn't fit you.
Fox news proved that there is no deep state. May want to look that up.
You are posting an OPINION article, btw.
Dershowitz became something else quite a while ago.
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?
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.
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.
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:
Your inability to process what is in my post doesn't concern me in the least.
Contacts don't imply collusion, only evil little imaginations do that.
If there was collusion, Mueller would have put it into the report.
From the report:
What does Manafort's meeting 'imply'?
That's why I've based my comments on FACTS, not imaginations.
As you can see from the above quote from his report, Mueller DID document collusion.
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.
I feel Dems should impeach or stop yammering on and on and on and on about it.
Shit or get off the pot.
You can take your insults and shove them somewhere appropriate.
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.
Obama acted, Trump talked about it. Yet you claim Obama didn't obstruct; and Trump did.
Take off you TDDS glasses. He faced 0 challenges, except from the Russians that schooled him not to come to court unprepared.
TDDS. Pure and simple.
More TDDS. Please seek help. Now.
Google is a great aid for those with horrendous memories; but it cannot cure TDDS.
You are a fountain of TDDS.
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.
Obviously you didn't read my other links; we have had this conversation before- and you have been proven wrong each time.
"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."
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.
Proof?
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.
Where did I claim that?
Read the report, he did.
Cut the crap. Stop deflecting and answer the question.
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.
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.
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...
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?
Total bullshit.
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.
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.
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.
My reading of that comment is that based on your prior comments, your comment was disappointing.
That's nice.
It wasn't to you, it was to me, and I took him at his word.
Yes really.
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.
You said they paid millions for the information, prove it.
Start on page 36:
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:
You asked me to explain the difference, I can't understand it for you.
From your NYT link:
Thanks for playing.
You mean like the Republicans during the Obama years? They hated executive orders then, now, not a peep.
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.
Yes it is !
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...
I don't do Benghazi. Why do you ?
Besides, Benghazi wasn't brought up in the Mueller report....or was it ?
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.
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.
Here is a handy dandy heat map created @
Thanks. Hadn't seen this over there. I like Lawfare.
So do I, they don't blow smoke and help layman to get it...
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.
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.
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.
A simple "Yes, they don't have the guts to do it" would have sufficed.
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.
Yes, that is how impeachment works.
No where, because I think the Dems lack the cojones to even do it.
By fiat? How very melodramatic!
Reminds me of an old joke. Trump isn't playing pocket pool, he is playing elevator.
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.
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.
So you're incapable of meeting the challenge. Got ya.
deleted for context
deleted for context
deleted for context
Deleted for context
deleted for context!
.
deleted for context
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.
Trump has the maturity of a 10 year old.
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.
deleted for context
That restricts GOP Congressmen from proposing articles of impeachment HOW Tex?
Deleted for context
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.
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?
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".
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.
As the saying goes: more's the pity.
[Deleted] how about answering my question.
Yes, that's right, we were talking about Democrats.
Very good, Dulay!
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.
You act like a puppy with a new toy.
Fixated.
Have fun!
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.
What’s best for the country is to be rid of the anti American Marxist statist Democrats
marxists, statists, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah
That is the most cogent comment you've posted in this seed.
Osmosis.
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?
"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.
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.