The NYT alerts us. (Nice photo at the link.)
I was just noticing James Comey's new column in the Washington Post, "No ‘treason.’ No coup. Just lies — and dumb lies at that."
I had passed over it earlier today, because I have low tolerance for that sort of thing these days, but I got interested in it when I read this enticing interpretation from wildswan in the comments in last night's café.
We weren't plotting against Trump, we were also plotting against Hillary and everyone else. Our goal was power over them all. But our plots seemed about to fail. We had to cut Hillary down to size; but then, while we maneuvered against her, unexpectedly Trump won. Of course, we had an insurance policy against him, so that swung into action. We formatted it as usual as an "investigation." But unexpectedly there was trouble getting his people to accept our lies. And he wouldn't give in. It was His fault that we had to ratchet up our attack so much. And if He wants to call our investigations and jailings and leakings a coup, it was a self-inflicted coup and also it didn't happen. Due to Him. We aren't to blame. We tried to "investigate", as we call it, Him into impotence. God knows how we tried; and so do Melania, Barron, Kelley Ann Conway, George Conway, General Flynn, his wife, his son, Papadopoulos, his fiance, Manafort, the members of his firm, Roger Stone, Sarah Sanders and assorted individuals fired for no reason except supporting Him against the "investigation". Nothing is my fault; they should have given in. They should give in now. Last chance. I am FBI.Don't know if that's accurate. Don't know if that's remotely related to what Mueller wants to say to us.
There's also this, which came out in the NYT yesterday: "White House Insider Account Has Feel of an Outside View, and Prompts a Mueller Denial":
Two years ago, the author Michael Wolff parlayed his access to one of President Trump’s most powerful advisers, Stephen K. Bannon, into “Fire and Fury”... Now, Mr. Wolff is back with a sequel, “Siege: Trump Under Fire,” which appears to rely just as heavily on Mr. Bannon. But the author’s source left the White House in August 2017 and has watched Mr. Trump’s circuslike presidency from afar since. That gives the disclosures in Mr. Wolff’s latest book a secondhand feeling — and one of his most sensational claims drew a quick, emphatic rebuttal.I'm guessing that's what Mueller wants to talk about.
A spokesman for Robert S. Mueller III, the special counsel in the Russia investigation, denied Mr. Wolff’s claim that in March 2018, Mr. Mueller was preparing to indict the president for obstruction of justice on three counts, including witness tampering. Andrew Weissmann, one of Mr. Mueller’s prosecutors, whom Mr. Wolff says led that effort, did not even work on the part of the investigation that focused on obstruction....
UPDATE: Why did Mueller make an occasion out of his closing of the office and resigning? He took no questions and he mainly said the written report is the thing and we should read that and that alone. "The report is my testimony," etc. etc. I know there's a lot of chatter on the TV news channels, but they have to do that.
पोस्ट्स
२१९ टिप्पण्या:
219 पैकी 1 – 200 नवीन› नवीनतम»“This is it. This is finally it! Indictments today you Trumpy idiots!”
— Un-named Former Commenter
It'll be a double dose of interesting if Mueller adds "...and Barr's redactions are perfectly valid. Unredacting those sections would compromise on-going criminal proceedings or violate the necessary secrecy of grand jury testimony."
So now Comey says it was just 'dumb lies'.... So he admits, grudgingly, there were lies. Slowly but surely the truth will come out. The lies, the treason, the spying, the whole dirty laundry list of the FBI and DOJ.
Evil hates the light.. and the light is coming!
"Mr. Trump’s circus-like presidency"
Only circus-like - due to Colbert, Maddow, Pelosi, Nadler, Schit(D) rest of the hack(D) press.
They made it a circus.
I am FBI.
I wouldn't trust anyone in that outfit unless they're named Fox Mulder.
Only two possible outcomes-
Mueller will say enough to prove Trump committed Impeachable offenses.
Mueller will not say enough to prove impeachable offenses, thus being part of the cover-up.
For those in or cheering on that faction within the government, nailing Trump was always a best-case scenario but an unlikely one.
Mueller's must-not-fail mission was to protect the FBI/DOJ retroactively, to make the case that they had acted reasonably and responsibly even if wrongly. My guess is his remarks will boil down to that, plus a defense of his own investigation.
To bring the Russian Affaire up to speed, the final head butting contest is starting right now. And it's not Trump v. FBI. Comey is a bit player and a distraction.
It's now openly GCHQ ( Her Majesty's Government Communications Centre) and the USA's NSA v. The USA's Military Intelligence under President Trump. The USA's NSA has been run since 1947 by the British Empire's successor to its Bletchley Park Operation during WWII. All Spy Sharing with them is done under the Queen's command.
Trump's MI has done a long preparation for his election and his counter attack to become our final Independence Day.
"The board is set. The pieces are moving. We come to it at last, the great battle of our time."
I suspect Mueller will correct some Media/DNC distortions and also clarify some administrative details.
Mueller is at heart an administrator.
whom Mr. Wolff says led that effort
Illiteracy is a problem.
Mueller will tell us that finding no Russian collusion doesn't mean there wasn't Russian collusion, which means there was Russian collusion. He'll also say he had no need to prove obstruction of justice, because a sitting president can't be indicted, so that's proof that that's the only reason he wasn't indicted, so Trump is guilty. Isn't that what he wanted Barr to say?
Nowadays wearing a dress is a plus at the FBI.
Listening at the TV while I am cruising the net.
So far it is a half hour of people speculating on what Muller is going to say. Then it will be more time spent on trying to parse what he actually said to mean what they want it to mean.
What a freaking waste of time.
Like someone said. Everyone wants their own truth despite what the reality may be.
"I am FBI.
I wouldn't trust anyone in that outfit unless they're named Fox Mulder."
TRUST NO ONE.
rhhardin said...
Nowadays wearing a dress is a plus at the FBI.
It worked for J. Edgar Hoover...
Even if Mueller said the exact words Trump is innocent the crazy would say it's evidence that Trump is guilty. These people are all kinds of crazy. I don't care what Mueller says anymore. He already wrote his report.
It all hinges on an inability to prove a negative. No evidence of a crime does not 100% absolutely mean no crime was committed. It's sort of like the flat Earth arguments, or big foot, or the Loch Ness monster. I mean, we can't say with absolute certainty that the sun won't rise tomorrow after all.
That's not actually a thing, it's as genuine as the dossier.
Mueller is resisting having to appear before Congress out of fear of questions about when he knew that there was no collusion. He would be challenged about many politically partisan aspects of his team.
For Press Release - Robert S. Mueller, Department of Justice (Special Assignment)
May 29, 2019
Hello
My name is Bob Mueller.
I was the Special Prosecutor. I investigated Trump and his associates for 2.5 years.
I indicted 13 Russian trolls, who likely will never be tried. That's Barr's problem now.
Andrew Weissman ran my office. He loves Hillary.
No, we didn't find any evidence of Russian collusion. Sorry.
Trump fired Comey and talked about firing me. But I didn't indict him for obstruction.
Have a nice day!
Mueller is a figure head
It's started!
His voice has that “old man” timbre and tremor.
if you were a ham sandwich, should you be worried?
will it be CYA?
will it be some shade? (best defense= good offense)
last licks while others are out of town?
“Mueller's must-not-fail mission was to protect the FBI/DOJ retroactively, to make the case that they had acted reasonably and responsibly even if wrongly. My guess is his remarks will boil down to that, plus a defense of his own investigation.”
I think that there were two purposes behind Mueller’s investigation. First was to stall the cleanup. We thought that meant cleanup of the illegalities by the Deep State and Obama Administration in 2016. But it is looking more and more like the abuses and the rot may go back to maybe 2012. And, secondly, they needed a clean pass off of the information they had to the House Dems for use in impeachment. The information may go back and include illegal surveillance from 2016, and maybe even earlier. And maybe a third purpose was to help the Dems win at least the House in 2018.
Of those goals, the first one, of stalling the cleanup investigations, worked for most of two years, but didn’t last long enough to get a Democrat in the White House, at which point, the investigations would, of course, be shut down. I think that the second will turn out to also be mostly a failure. Pencil Neck, Wadler, etc no doubt have much of the information that they want, but can’t use it publicly because they didn’t receive it legally (similar to the FBI having known for months about Carter Page and George Popodopolis, before getting informed through proper channels of their (fabricated) collusion, so that they could use that for the FISA warrants). I think that Judiciary Chair Wadler is the one demanding all the Mueller information. Nope. Not a legitimate Congressional purpose, and much of it protected by privacy laws. And, any of the confidential information that they reveal that they have would be grounds for criminal prosecution.
What I think happened to thwart their plans was the nomination and quick confirmation of Bill Barr as AG. He was able to shut down the Mueller investigation before the newly installed House committee chairs could get their committees up and working. If they had been faster, I don’t think that Mueller and Rosenstein would have refused those House subpoenas. But Barr would and is doing so aggressively.
I thought Mueller was fighting the possibility of public testimony before Congress. Instead he wanted to testify in private ostensibly because he didn't want to appear political. Which I found weird. Because if he’s simply testifying to facts and not “being political” then he wouldn’t appear political. Congress might. He wouldn’t.
But Congress was pushing for open hearings and live testimony. The great “transparency”.
And now, on a dime, he turns and wants to speak publicly, but Not before Congress? Not under oath?
I’m sorry, that’s ALWAYs going to appear political. If he now claims bad things about Trump that were not in his report, the left will love it, but he’ll look like a purely political stooge to the rest of us. If he exonerates Trump more better, Dems heads will explode about being duped by an Alt Right Mueller who knows Bob Barr.
This cannot end well.
Shorter Mueller:
1. Yeah, there was obstructive behavior, but whaddayagonnado?
2. I already told you, the Russians attempted to interfere with the election, but there's not enough evidence to tie the Trump campaign to it.
3. Not going to tell you again. So long, and thanks for all the memes.
Shorter Mueller: I'm not gonna testify before Congress! I'm outta here.
Nadler should subpoena Mueller. Let's keep this tedious charade going for another 2 years.....
If there’s spying back to 2012, who did they wire tap in the Romney campaign?
Trump plays a long game.
This could have happened a year ago.
“Like I’ve always said, just wait until Mueller appears for Nadler's committee! That’s where he will reveal Trumps crimes!”
— Un-named Former Commenter
The whole country will experience a massive schadenfreude episode when that sanctimonious prick Comey goes to jail. And he should have to share a cell with Brennan.
The DOJ should give Roger Stone the right to respond.
It would be less stuffy, and more entertaining.
Ok, watched the whole thing. Mueller could not be more honest and clear. PDJT is definitely going down now. He should resign, in shame, just as Nixon did.
Based on my Facebook feed, I'm guessing Mueller didn't call Trump a corrupt person who deserves to be indicted for a cover-up.
When that did not work...
Justice department policy kept us from shooting the president outright.
Well, that was jaw dropping.
Mueller just set the political world on fire, washed his hands, and walked away.
What a coward. What a low-life.
But it is looking more and more like the abuses and the rot may go back to maybe 2009.
@Bruce Hayden, FIFY
Shorter Mueller:
There's still no Russian Collusion with Trump (see, e.g., my report).
I was watching the NBC stream on the YouTube. They immediately started spinning what Mueller said.
The gist of the statement was that there is nothing Mueller can add if he brought before Congress. He's given them all the ammunition he has in order to impeach Trump on Obstruction of Justice charges. Note I'm saying "he has" instead of "they need". The fact that the current Attorney General has a different interpretation of obstruction statutes means that Senate will have a clear path to reject impeachment charges. We also cannot leave out the fact that the Senate is in charge of the impeachment trial. It could go completely sideways and become an engine to investigate the investigation.
Mueller: "If we had confidence that the president did not commit a crime we would have said so" This gives me so much confidence--not.
"Mueller said that he was bound by longstanding Justice Department opinions that say a president can’t be indicted while in office.
In his first public comments in the probe, Mueller said on Wednesday ‘‘it would be unfair’’ to potentially accuse someone of a crime when the person couldn’t stand trial to defend himself."
But it's okay to imply that the only reason he didn't indict is because a president can't be indicted. There's no need to mention any evidence of obstruction, because he can't be indicted, even though we know he's guilty. What could be fairer than that?
EXONERATED.
Sharpen your flaying knives. Now it's our turn.
Mueller called Barr a liar today.
Deep State strikes back.
Are “obstruction” allegations actually signs of desperation?
So if Mueller can't indict a sitting President for obstruction due to DOJ policy he wouldn't be able to indict him for conspiracy either. So what was the investigation about? What a weasel.
Now do Bill Clinton and the Starr report. (Starr report DID say Clinton was guilty, did not say to indict)
@Althouse, I'm afraid I have to agree with SDaly. Your quaint efforts to find honorable reasons why Mueller does what he does are ... quaint.
Two things that stand out for me:
Mueller opened by implying the Russians stole the election from Hillary (we still have no evidence anything was 'hacked').
Mueller went from 'no evidence' of collusion in the report to 'we didn't have enough evidence to prove in court.
Which brings "Trump is a Russian operative" back in play, when at least that part was dead buried before today.
Its very clear why Mueller is afraid to answer questions under oath.
He cannot actually and legally defend what his team has done and their fake "exoneration" standard on top of their fake "could not indict" nonsense.
His team could easily have brought an indictment and forced the DOJ to invoke their internal rule.
In the sane way Mueller could subpoena Trump but would then have to demonstrate in Court the basis for that....and there would have been none.
Nope. A last gasp hail mary in support of dem talking points by Mr Uranium One coverup (he hid the active investigation info from Congress to enable the Clinton deal to go thru).
The Hill:
Why obstruction and cover-up charges smack of desperation
What a weinie Mueller is. He just stokes the fires, giving the WH enough to say "no collusion, no obstruction" AND giving the House Dems enough to say "we need to impeach and keep investigating." Forget Beto -- Bob Mueller is the giant asshole here.
“But it's okay to imply that the only reason he didn't indict is because a president can't be indicted. There's no need to mention any evidence of obstruction, because he can't be indicted, even though we know he's guilty. What could be fairer than that?”
As I have pointed out before here, they couldn’t win at Obstruction because they couldn’t prove the required Mens Rea, the intent requirement. For that, they needed a personal interview of Trump, which they could never force. They tried to get around that with a creative interpretation of one of the Obstruction statutes, but Barr wrote a memo to Rosenstein a year ago that essentially torpedoed that theory. The entire Part 2 of the Mueller Report violates DoJ rules and regulations. Mueller’S highly partisan Dem operative prosecutors knew this, of course, but including it, I think, to try to force AG Barr’s hand. It didn’t work. He released the Mueller report, almost in full, and since most of their allegations of Obstruction were well known exercises of Trump’s Article II Powers, they just looked like the partisan hacks that we all knew that they are.
Shorter Mueller:
Can't you read? We did the best we could. It's over.
Were Barr and Mueller talking about the same document? The same person?
BleachBit-and-Hammers: "Are “obstruction” allegations actually signs of desperation?"
Mueller has fully adopted the illegal Weissman BS obstruction construction that perfectly legal actions taken in perfectly legal ways could still be obstruction if prosecutors feel like making it so.
That would be the Arthur Andersen Supreme Court smacked-down BS that Mueller and the dems attempted to lay on Trump.
Thus move by Mueller guarantees the lefties have won on the dem side and impeachment is coming, despite Pelosi and Schumer knowing its a bad idea.
The lefty/LLR mob will not be denied.
We don't have enough evidence to prove in court that Ann Althouse stole 5 fire trucks last year. But don't get the idea that we're exonerating her, 'cause we aren't.
“If we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime,” Mueller said, “we would have said so.”
Mueller should be disbarred for this.
To suggest that there must be clear evidence that an accused is not guilty is to turn due process on its head.
Ironically Mueller may have actually done more damage to the anti Trump cause with this. He has restoked the impeachment fires of the rabid Dem base. My current guess is Trump will be end up being impeached in the house over some vague notion of obstruction. To a majority of voters, many of whom that aren't exactly Trump fans, it will seem more and more that the Dems may have overreached and lost their way on this. He will then go on to handily win re-election, winning both the electoral college and popular vote this time.
Robert "The FBI Whitewasher" Mueller will not answer any questions.
He is a despicable thug.
He has disgraced ...
* himself
* the institution of Special Counsel
* the FBI
* the US Intelligence Community
* the United States of America.
readering: "Were Barr and Mueller talking about the same document? The same person?"
As if on cue, here comes noted pro-Soviet Historian readering coughing up the continuing narrative noise.
This was the purpose of Muellers statement, no doubt written by Weissman in close coordination with the dems.
As it has been from the beginning.
Its also a self-defense ploy now that we are just weeks away from the Horowitz report and Durhams apparently rapid investigation into the hoax.
Btw, is there anything funnier than Mueller testifying to the high ethics of Weissman and the Clinton lawyers on his team after Weissman has been sanctioned for improper behavior by multiple courts?
LOL
Declassify it all Mr President.
Renember, Democracy dies in darkness.
Legal experts are on TV accusing Mueller of lying in his statement.
I forgot to mention that Robert "The FBI Whitewasher" Mueller has disgraced also ...
* the US Department of Justice
And a generation hence, super-secret files will come to light revealing that Mueller was a Trump operative all along...
Mueller's "job interview" for FBI Director was a stealth way to get a suspect interview with the president. When he left his phone there, that was a stealth way to wiretap the president.
And this was the stealth way Democrats figured out how he could testify without being cross-examined. It was like watching a hostage interview made under duress to a lifetime of lies.
Next and only step for Dems is impeachment since Trump has refused to cooperate with the house investigations. Mueller used this opportunity to give them what meager ammunition he could, before saying I'm outta here. By tone and wording he was clearly endorsing that option. As Drago points out it was a hail mary. Weasels gonna weasel.
Where I thought you were going with this: Why did it take a live press conference to say that the report speaks for itself?
How did the FBI become such a politically partisan organization that is distrusted by about half the US population?
A huge reason is that the FBI Director from 2001 to 2013 was Robert "The FBI Whitewasher" Mueller.
“His team could easily have brought an indictment and forced the DOJ to invoke their internal rule.”
I don’t think so. They couldn’t prove intent, and Barr killed their attempt to end run around that element of the crime with their creative Obstruction interpretation. Note that Barr wrote his memo to DAG Rosenstein, and Trump’s attorneys bypassed Mueller, and took it straight to Rosenstein. I think that it very clearly was designed to rein the Mueller prosecutors in from using their creative Obstruction interpretation by making it against DoJ policy and accepted statutory interpretations. If they try to run with it any, in the face of DoJ policy and official statutory interpretation, the just look like the partisan hacks that we all know that they are.
The other thing to keep in mind is that DAG Rosenstein had to approve each and every Mueller indictment. He was the Senate confirmed principal officer, Mueller was not. I think that Barr’s memo to Rosenstein in early June last year made it almost impossible for the latter to approve any filing of Obstruction charges against Trump, absent a smoking gun that they never found.
Nonapod: "Ironically Mueller may have actually done more damage to the anti Trump cause with this. He has restoked the impeachment fires of the rabid Dem base."
The smarter dems already know they have lost control so they are moving toCongressional Investigation Hoax Dossier 3.0, after the failure of Hillary/Fusion/Ohr/Steele hoax dossier 1.0 and Mueller Report Hoax Dossier 2.0.
Given the dem candidates open support for open borders, infanticide, etc, impeachment, though not a great choice, appears to be their only choice.
From Trump presser March 26: "The Mueller report was great. It could not have been better." Same presser: "The Republican Party will soon be known as the party of healthcare"
Trump satire the best satire.
Mueller responded to Nadler. Nadler had to have an escape route from having Mueller subjected to Republican questions.
That was 90% of the purpose of he presser. Nadler will not subpoena Muller, even though as a private citizen Mueller would be required to show. He could not claim executive privilege. He could not plead the 5th. His claim that he refuses to step outside the final report strikes me as wrong, as a point to law.
Nadler is now left with the spector of every witness he wants that has testified before Mueller, stating that they refuse to testify outside of testimony already given.
iowantwo: "Legal experts are on TV accusing Mueller of lying in his statement."
Because he did lie. With malicious intent.
Thats why it is a statement, not testimony under oath.
After this performance he absolutely cannot testify under oath because all of his contradictory statements made in front of multiple DOJ insiders would be exposed.
I guess Mueller won't get invited to the White House Christmas Party with the other Executive Branch employees.
Here's the thing:
1. Everything Trump did on this topic (obstruction) was pretty much reported on. The voters can decide in 2020, even without the Mueller Report.
2. Have you ever talked to an FBI agent or an Assistant US Attorney? They are pretty sure that everyone is committing a Federal crime all the time, but prosecutorial discretion lets them decide who and what get prosecuted. Mueller was the head of the FBI and was a US Attorney. Yeah, he thinks Trump probably committed a crime, but he thinks you did, too.
3. Rep. Justin Amash is committing three Federal felonies a day, just like everyone else. Let's get that US Attorney in Grand Rapids going on him, and then see how he likes it.
Come on, President Trump!
Declassify all of it!!!
If the Russians were doing all these terrible things in 2016 to interfere with the election, what was Comey's FBI doing about it, and why didn't they indict anyone THEN?
The tide of battle seems to have turned. Mueller’s actions here seem to be rear guard actions as the Dems and their Deep State retreat. Not even a holding action, as much as mere harassing fire.
Mueller doesn't care he let two dead men rot in Boston prison, he shut down the investigation into bcci, letting bin mahfouz and other players getaway with a slap on the wrist
“Nadler is now left with the spector of every witness he wants that has testified before Mueller, stating that they refuse to testify outside of testimony already given.”
Except that Wadler doesn’t eve have much of their testimony. He wants it, and will subpoena it, but won’t get most of it. It was legally a criminal investigation, and Congressional committees don’t get to see such evidence, just because they want to.
This slimy weasel-wording by Mueller deserves to be called out:
If we had had confidence that the president had clearly not committed a crime we would have said so.
His job was to examine whether there was sufficient evidence to support criminal charges. Period. So what's the answer? Yes? Or no?
Note that you can say you found enough evidence to support charges without actually *bringing* criminal charges (so the silliness about a conflicting set of OLC memos about not being able to do that is actually irrelevant). Simply saying you found sufficient evidence to support criminal charges would be ample grounds for political remedies like impeachment.
It's hard to respect a man who won't do his freaking job, and then misleads people about what that job actually was.
FWIW, I don't like using the word "exonerated", because that's not the job of a prosecutor either.
Robert Mueller just enshrined himself in the history books.
He will be listed right next to Comey and Hoover when the endemic corruption of the fbi is discussed.
TV news channels want impeachment and they want it now
Mueller won't answer questions because the questions he would be asked are very inconvenient for him. I think what he was trying to negotiate with the House was a forum where the opposition didn't get to ask questions, but even Nadler couldn't finesse that sort of deal.
Here is the problem for Mueller- he appears to have done no investigation at all into the sources of the allegations themselves. If we are to believe the FBI leakers, the entire investigation started with Joseph Mifsud's story to George Papadopoulos that the Russians had Clinton's e-mails. However, Mueller and his crack team of investigators did no examination at all into answering the question of who, exactly, Joseph Mifsud is. I mean, literally no investigation at all. The report simply relies on Papadopoulos' own opinion that Mifsud was a Russian intelligence agent.
Indeed, it becomes even more clear when you look at what Mueller did with the Steele Dossier- we know Glenn Simpson paid Steele to write the document, and yet there is apparently no evidence at all that Mueller or his crack team asked Simpson a single question in front of a grand jury- not one question. Nor were questions asked to any of Simpson's colleagues. A real investigation would have done a thorough investigation into whether or not the allegations themselves were fabrications. There is literally zero evidence that Mueller and his crack team did this.
And let me make this really easy for even the Inga's of the world to understand- compare what was done in Mueller's investigation with the Jussie Smollett investigation by the Chicago PD. In the Smollett investigation, the investigators didn't just take the allegations and try to determine whether or not they could be proven- they actually investigated into whether or not Smollett was lying his ass off, and they basically proved he was.
I see many in the MAGA camp, those I respect, are trying to spin this into a positive for Trump.
Agree with Elizabeth Warren on the purpose of today's statements from Mueller (first sentence only)
Mueller’s statement makes clear what those who have read his report know: It is an impeachment referral, and it’s up to Congress to act. They should.
There were several reports out this morning that Barr is in a drag-out fight with intel chiefs over declassification. This deep state move with Mueller today makes sense.
The USS Robert Mueller (DD-XX) laid smoke and maneuvered away at flank speed, leaving only a trail of oily, greasy, slime behind.
Guy had the look and demeanor of a loser, but he couldn't have signaled more clearly what he wants to happen.
Narr
You KNOW he wanted to nail Cadet Bonespurs SO bad
My only hope is they bring back Fred Armisen to play Michael Wolff.
He was funny.
"You got the gist, so shut up."
If we had evidence that Meadehouse had not or never committed tax evasion in the last 45 years, we would have said that.
If the Russians were doing all these terrible things in 2016 to interfere with the election, what was Comey's FBI doing about it, and why didn't they indict anyone THEN?
"Questions no one is asking, but should be" for 500, Alex.
In an impeachment, in the House, does the president get a chance to defend himself?
If so, I think he should welcome impeachment "A chance to clear my name after 3 years of fake news, fake dossiers, fake outrage, fake investigations"
I strongly suspect that he would get a good outpouring of sympathy from the country.
In any event, I can't see the House getting 218 Reps to vote for impeachment. There are too many dems that come from districts where the voters would be upset.
It would also be nice to see just to satisfy my curiosity. They have been going on since before the election abut impeachment but nobody ever says what they want to impeach im FOR. What are the actual crimes and misdemeanors?
I think they would have to come up with something if they wanted to impeach him.
John Henry
There were several reports out this morning that Barr is in a drag-out fight with intel chiefs over declassification. This deep state move with Mueller today makes sense.
Barr probably is warring with the MI6 types who sent Philby over to be the liaison with CIA.
Jack Dunlap was not even the real MI6 agent.
The top KGB officers had known for more than a year that Penkovsky was a double agent, but it was a high priority that they protect their source, who was a highly placed mole in MI6. Jack Dunlap was just another source they had to protect.
They never found the mole in MI 6. Who knows ?
I think the trial is in the Senate. I doubt he would have any opportunity to testify, even if he wanted to.
This was Mueller trying to goad the House into impeaching Trump- that is pretty obvious.
I actually wish Nadler would subpoena Mueller, but that threat was always a charade for the reasons I outlined above. More likely to happen, though, is Graham issuing one to Mueller. That would interesting, but I don't think that is going to happen until late this Summer if it does.
Indeed, it becomes even more clear when you look at what Mueller did with the Steele Dossier- we know Glenn Simpson paid Steele to write the document,..
There were several versions of the "Steele Dossier" being circulated. Some of the information in the dossier was provided to Steele by Simpson himself (Fusion GPS).
Mueller said indicting Trump wasn't an option because of Justice Dept. legal opinion, but is a DOJ guideline evidence of a crime committed by Trump?
If I don't pull your car over on the highway because I don't have the authority, or the lights and sirens, to do it, is that proof that you were speeding?
Mueller said indicting Trump wasn't an option because of Justice Dept. legal opinion, but is a DOJ guideline evidence of a crime committed by Trump?
If I don't pull your car over on the highway because I don't have the authority, or the lights and sirens, to do it, is that proof that you were speeding?
Blogger Michael K said...
I think the trial is in the Senate. I doubt he would have any opportunity to testify, even if he wanted to.
It's helpful to read up how the Impeachment trial of Clinton was handled in the Senate.. Eye opening.
They had no idea what they were doing, what they were supposed to be doing, and didn't care.
Chief Justice Roberts is supposed to preside over any impeachment trial of Trump, which doesn't do much for my confidence.
Browndog: "I see many in the MAGA camp, those I respect, are trying to spin this into a positive for Trump."
Nonsense, as every comment above demonstrates.
I explicitly noted this was the grenade over the shoulder by Mueller precisely because it lends itself towards the inevitable impeachment that Pelosi and Schumer cannot stop.
Mueller purposely muddied the waters even more to support the dem narrative all tne while going to bat for the partisan dems on the Mueller team.
No one believes otherwise.
What some commenters are doing is assuming that impeachment will occur and assessing the fallout from that.
Browndog: "Chief Justice Roberts is supposed to preside over any impeachment trial of Trump, which doesn't do much for my confidence."
That is also my biggest concern.
Another problem with Mueller's "obstruction" smears today, like the report itself, is the assumption endemic in Weissman's interpretation of the statute that Barr specifically disputed in his famous memo. That is, actions that are not naturally "obstructive" because of the lack of mens rea should be treated like "obstruction" anyway if there is a possibility that the actions would interfere in a supposed future "investigation." So even though Trump did not say "I wish I could fire Mueller" in order to obstruct justice, the fact that his "order" (if carried out be staff) would have impeded Weissman's witch hunt is reason enough to declare it "obstruction."
This completely obliterates the common law concept of intent, which is why Barr wrote his memo. It is a plasticizing of the law that is anathema to American jurisprudence. Thinking like this is what led to Weissman being the only DOJ prosecutor to be overturned by the Supreme Court 9-0, when applying the same addled thinking to the Enron prosecution.
Yet the monolithic media (including Fox News Channel) never mention this history of Weissman, nor the hideously hoary interpretation of Law. But one has only to peruse the many "counts" of "obstruction" in the Report to see how silly these things are, and the fact the report was completed so easily is (to me) prima facie evidence that Trump did not obstruct Mueller. Which is why the monolithic media will not discuss the facts of the Report, only how various talking heads interpret the Report. Opinion. Not news.
Today would be a great day for an intrepid reporter to review the actual facts, such as Mueller's prior representations (three times) to Barr that he did not rely on the OLC opinion when choosing not to indict Trump. Boy it sure sounded today like Mueller is contradicting himself. Again.
What a weasel. Everything he says and does is wrong.
1. If he couldn’t “charge” the president, because of OLC guidance, why didn’t he say:
A. There’s enough evidence for charges on x, or y, or z, but I can’t charge him because of OLC; or
B. There’s enough evidence to charge the president, and I recommend doing so, but the AG wont let me charge because of the OLC; or
C. There’s enough evidence to charge the President, and here’s the indictment we obtained, the AG will decide whether to pursue; or
D. There’s not enough evidence to charge, and we decline to prosecute.
Instead, he does this mealy mouthed “my report speaks for itself... except for these additional comments I’m making now, in the press, and NOT under oath, and btw fuck transparency, I won’t testify publicly.”
Fuck you Bob! If you knew from the start that you could never charge the president, then what the hell were you doing for 2 years and $40million? I want my money back, fucker!
I say Trump treat this like the Jussie Smollett case - send Mueller a bill for the $40 million.
Elbow . . . . thrown.
Honest question: If the POTUS could not be charged with obstruction of justice (part 2 of the report), then could he not also be immune from prosecution for conspiracy to interfere with a US election (part 1 of the report)?
And if that's true what was the point of the whole exercise? I guess he referenced the the material is available for the "political solution", but that's a new use for the DoJ. - somewhat rhetorical question there.
I keep hearing that the DoJ exists for the sole purpose of creating criminal referrals but they seem to be doing everything but that.
Browndog said...
It's helpful to read up how the Impeachment trial of Clinton was handled in the Senate.. Eye opening.
They had no idea what they were doing, what they were supposed to be doing, and didn't care.
Chief Justice Roberts is supposed to preside over any impeachment trial of Trump, which doesn't do much for my confidence.
Long term the only thing that can really put this country back on track is what happens after the swamp impeaches and convicts Trump. Even 6 more years of Trump will not solve the problem.
There are thousands of people in DC that need to decorate lamp posts. Republicans and Democrats.
"Justice" Roberts has been a perfect LLR. He is just as much a traitor as Mitt Romney who will be pivotal in the senate part of this coup.
I pray every night that the House impeaches Trump. Game over. Trump wins in 2020. Dems lose House. GOP holds Senate.
Dems: heed the call of history: impeach Trump now! Tom Steyer. George Soros! Rally your troops! Impeach now!
The GOP will be in office for a generation.
Don't say that he's hypocritical
Say rather that he's apolitical
"Once the slanders are up, who cares where they come down?
That's not my department" say Mueller von Braun
The BS in the report was that it claimed that the only reason that they couldn’t consider charging Trump was that DoJ had internal rules against charging their boss, the President (since, of course, their power to prosecute is derivative of his Article II power). But they never could prove intent, and thus DoJ policy was that they couldn’t charge. They pretend that they could fudge the intent issue, by using their creative Obstruction interpretation, ignoring that their interpretation was legally dead, after review by OLC, the DoJ organization that is in charge of interpreting statutes
The BS in the report was that it claimed that the only reason that they couldn’t consider charging Trump was that DoJ had internal rules against charging [Trump].
Except it does NOT state that in the report. And at least twice (maybe thrice) Mueller personally assured Barr that the OLC opinion had "no bearing" on whether to indict Trump. He contradicted that today, which tells me he can't go under oath because he can't keep his story straight.
“Honest question: If the POTUS could not be charged with obstruction of justice (part 2 of the report), then could he not also be immune from prosecution for conspiracy to interfere with a US election (part 1 of the report)?”
Yes, but the issue with part 2 was that the Mueller prosecutors refused to acknowledge that they didn’t have an Obstruction case in the first place, just like they never had a Collusion case, even if Trump weren’t POTUS. They pretended that they couldn’t decide to charge him because of DoJ policy not to charge a sitting President, when the real reason was DoJ policy not to charge when the facts didn’t support charging (and their aggressive Obstruction theory had been rejected by OLC).
Amadeus 48: I agree. I hope Democrats realize how effective the full-bore angry strategy can be in persuading persuadable voters to vote against Trump. "Oh yes," these persuadable voters will think, "your irrational arguments and angry words are totally convincing." In addition, to remove President from office, Democrats would only need to hold on to the 12 Dem seats up for election, and win 20 of the 22 Rep seats up for election. This sounds like a can't lose proposition.
Mueller's widely misunderstood comment: "If we had had confidence that the president had clearly not committed a crime we would have said so." He was referring to President Obama.
“The BS in the report was that it claimed that the only reason that they couldn’t consider charging Trump was that DoJ had internal rules against charging [Trump].”
Obviously that was no BS.
“Except it does NOT state that in the report. And at least twice (maybe thrice) Mueller personally assured Barr that the OLC opinion had "no bearing" on whether to indict Trump. He contradicted that today, which tells me he can't go under oath because he can't keep his story straight.”
And you were unable to comprehend Mueller’s meaning and you did so to suit Trump’s purposes. You were played. Idiot.
It was said even before the election in 2016 that even Trump wins the election the establishment would never allow him to "be" President.
So far so good...
McConnell will approve Trump's judges, but that's it. Nothing but Impeachment talk for the next 18 months.
What Mueller did today was devastating. I still think today was about shutting down Barr to protect the deep state/Obama. A sure fire way to do that is to gets all the libs screaming impeachment with their hair on fire....again. Still.
"The report is my testimony,"
In other words.......there's an impeachment pony in that pile of shit.
He's encouraging those "nattering nabobs of negativism" to glean several disparate facts, and weave them into any narrative that impeaches Trump.
Inga...Allie Oop said...
And you were unable to comprehend Mueller’s meaning and you did so to suit Trump’s purposes. You were played. Idiot.
And now we are all going to watch as Hillary and Obama's henchmen are indicted and forced to answer for their treason. At least 2 of them will point their grubby little fingers at their boss to stay out of prison.
And all of their little tools like Inga will have to face up to their complete failure and stupidity.
You have been wrong about everything.
I have been right about everything.
Trump is completely exonerated as the Mueller report made clear. There was never any Russian collusion except by Hillary and Obama.
Yeah, Mueller's not going to testify.
What a surprise.
“What Mueller did today was devastating.”
Indeed it was, for Trump and his Cultists.
“You have been wrong about everything.
I have been right about everything.”
Hahahaha, oy.
"Blogger Inga...Allie Oop said...
“What Mueller did today was devastating.”
Indeed it was, for Trump and his Cultists."
So I haven't read the news nor this thread. Could ypu put it in a nutshell for me, Inga? What was devastating? Was it that Mueller said he couldn't prove Trump was innocent? (I did hear this headline.). Was there anything else?
Indeed it was, for Trump and his Cultists.
Stupidity with an arrogance multiplier.
Most people would shut their traps upon being proven wrong time and time again.
Yet, here you are.
The Democrats will argue that President Trump may not nominate any new Supreme Court justices during impeachment proceedings.
Maybe Mueller has been told that Justice Ginsburg's health is failing fast.
"Why did Mueller make an occasion out of his closing of the office and resigning? He took no questions and he mainly said the written report is the thing and we should read that and that alone. "The report is my testimony," etc. etc. I know there's a lot of chatter on the TV news channels, but they have to do that."
Roger Simon knows the answer and also he thinks Mueller looked very nervous and I think he did too.
https://pjmedia.com/rogerlsimon/bob-mueller-runs-and-hides-in-eight-minutes/
Mueller responded to Nadler. Nadler had to have an escape route from having Mueller subjected to Republican questions.
That was 90% of the purpose of he presser
Yep. He threw Nadler a bone with the "we didnt exonerate Trump and we would have if we could have" in exchange for not having to testify.
He can't testify under oath. There are too many questions outstanding about how he handled the investigation. When did he know things. How did he learn. Strozk and Page alone will take most of a day.
CNN needs the ratings though, so they are pushing impeachment. Hard.
Has any one commented on the fact that Mueller's a piece of shit? Because I haven't read the comments but wanted to make sure that fact gets into the conversation.
Sorry if redundant. Hoping it is.
Please, Inga. What was devastating?
Maybe Ginsburg already has died several days ago, and the body has begun to smell very bad.
There's no more time to waste.
The Democrats are compelled to begin the impeachment immediately.
Inga: "And you were unable to comprehend Mueller’s meaning and you did so to suit Trump’s purposes."
LOL
The left has gone full marxist with their attempt to turn upside down a thousand years of English American jurisprudence sinply to get Trump...and the next republican and the next after that and...
We understand all too well what these guys are doing: they are saying that Trump is guilty UNLESS we say he is innocent.
Further, every LEGAL and constitutional action taken by Trump is itself illegal unless we say it isnt.
Its that simple. As it has always been for the lefties everywhere the left has taken power.
Sorry dummy, it doesnt work that way and its not going to work that way just because you lunatic lefty cultists want it to.
LOL
So tell us Inga, was it the dossier, or Carter Page OR George P that kicked off this hoax investigation?
Because you have, over time, argued it was each one, in succession!!
LOL
Not as funny as your May and Merkel are the real leaders of the free world insanity, but still pretty funny.
You want a good laugh?
Ask Inga if she still believes the hoax dossier is all true!
Go ahead and watch her squirm.
Just a few months back, long after the smarter dems admitted, along with Steele and Comey and Baker and McCabe and the rest of Team Coup, the hoax dossier is COMPLETELY unverified, long long after that, Inga the Cultist was STILL arguing nothing in the hoax dossier was "proved untrue"!!
Is it possible to be any cultishy dumber than that?
I think not.
What's the law about how long you can delay reporting a death to the government?
Inga: "Obviously that was no BS."
Obviously it is.
But not for morons on the left like you.
Did you know a majority of dem/Lefty sheep now actually believe the russians changed actual votes!
These cultists will believe literally anything they are told!
Which Inga demonstrates conclusively.
It will be a race against time.
During the very minute that Ginsburg's death is announced, President Trump will nominate her replacement. Not even 60 seconds will pass.
On the other hand, during that very same minute, the House Democrats will vote to impeach. Not even 60 seconds will pass.
I hope Trump is paying someone to test the air continually near Ginsburg's home.
Poor "Brave Brave Brave Brave Sir Robin" Mueller.
He knows that if he is ever asked "when did you know that no collusion/conspiracy occurred" he is screwed.
Because the real answer to that is: immediately
The next 2 years were all about making up false stories and new "legal standards" based on Weissman's BS designed to remove Trump.
Yes, run away Bobby. Run away.
Too bad you and Nadler were unable to pull off a deal for you to answer questions before Congress which excluded questions from republicans.
No wonder Jabba Nadler was passing out like a real life Mr Creosote...
Ace:
'[Mueller] told reporters Wednesday that the Justice Department policy prohibiting the indictment of a sitting president meant that "charging the president with a crime was therefore not an option we could consider." Mueller added that the Constitution requires a process other than any offered by the criminal justice system to find a president guilty of a crime.'
In juxtaposition with what Barr said under oath:
"...Special Counsel Mueller stated three times to us in that meeting, in response to our questioning, that he emphatically was not saying that but for the OLC [DOJ Office of Legal Counsel] opinion he would have found obstruction."
Context:
Attorney General William Barr Opening Statement Explaining Release Of Mueller Report
[before the Senate Judiciary Committee]
May 1, 2019
"...Now we first heard that the special counsel's decision not to decide the obstruction issue at meet--at the March 5 meeting when he came over to the department, and we were, frankly, surprised that--that they were not going to reach a decision on obstruction. And we asked them a lot about the reasoning behind this and the basis for this. ***Special Counsel Mueller stated three times to us in that meeting, in response to our questioning, that he emphatically was not saying that but for the OLC opinion he would have found obstruction.*** He said that in the future the facts of the case against the president might be such that a special counsel would recommend abandoning the OLC opinion, but this is not such a case. We did not understand exactly why the special counsel was not reaching a decision. And when we pressed him on it, he said that his team was still formulating the explanation."
(Emphasis (***) added)
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2019/05/01/attorney_general_william_barr_opening_statement_explaining_release_of_mueller_report.html
Now, Mueller insinuates that except for the DOJ OLC policy, he might well have charged Trump with a crime (of obstruction).
What a dirt bag.
Mueller will turn 75 on August 7. By not considering what Barr previously said under oath, it would seem he may have a pre-Alzheimer's age-related memory problem. Or that his statement was written for him by Andrew Weissmann.
No wonder he doesn't want to answer difficult questions.
Obama spied, Clinton colluded, Biden obstructed, DNC denied, and the Press prosecuted a multi-trimester cover-up with witch hunts and warlock trials.
Obama is in progress to become the Nixon of Liberals' dreams.
Fearby: "Now, Mueller insinuates that except for the DOJ OLC policy, he might well have charged Trump with a crime (of obstruction)."
There were multiple witnesses in that DOJ room when our Clever Bobby told Barr 3 times that the failure to bring obstruction charges was NOT based in that DOJ policy.
Thats why our Clever Bobby contradicted himself publicly while NOT under oath.
Very very Clever, Bobby.
Now run away...
Clearly it was devastating for Trump, clearly, on account of reasons.
So long, Lurch. Have great retirement. We know that’s all you and your ilk wanted in the end. Now sit back and watch the shitshow you helped to create unravel. I only hope it catches you again.
"Clearly it was devastating for Trump, clearly, on account of reasons."
Nobody knows what Inga knows.
I want Dems to begin impeachment immediately because I want to see them
fail all the more miserably. Who is with me?
"Who is with me?"
Me! Me!
Nadler was supposed to have a press conference today. Did he say anything?
First, and foremost, Mueller and his Prosecutors were not in a position to ignore the OLC opinion. And with Barr looking over Rosenstein’s shoulder, he wasn’t about to authorize it. Mueller and his prosecutors were, essentially, above the law by even suggesting that they would ignore the OLC opinion and utilize the Weissman Obstruction theory instead. Of course, Weissman was leading that, and given his previous lawless actions, no one should be surprised here...
To go back to basic, every crime requires both an Actus Reus and a Mens Rea. An illegal action and intent. Let’s use the example of Trump firing Comey. The action was firing him in order to impede an ongoing investigation, and the intent would have had to have been to do it for the specific reason of impeding a criminal investigation for the purpose of obstructing justice. Thus killing a key witness would possibly qualify as Actus Reus for Obstruction, but if it was due to a traffic accident, then Mens Rea would be missing, since there was no specific intent to obstruct an ongoing criminal investigation. Instead, the key witness died through someone’s negligence. Comey was fired for cause, based on evidence compiled by Rosenstein. There was no Actus Reus because the firing was completely by the book, and the firing didn’t impact any ongoing investigations, and there was no Mens Rea since Trump had a perfectly legitimate reason to fire him. And making it worse for the prosecutors, Trump didn’t even know that he was being investigated, since Comey lied to him about not being under investigation (additional reasons to have fired him for cause). No knowledge of an ongoing investigation completely negates the specific intent required of trying to Obstruct that investigation.
The Mueller prosecutors were foundering on not finding actual obstructive actions, since there was no underlying criminal activities related to any of Trump’s actions, and they couldnt prove the required intent (beyond a reasonable doubt) since they couldn’t personally interview Trump. So, they tried to do some creative lawyering. They came up with a novel theory, based on interpreting one clause in an unrelated Obstruction statute out of context. Their theory was that affecting a criminal investigation was sufficient for Obstruction. They severed the Actus Reus from the requirement of an underlying crime, and changed the specific intent required to a general intent. Thus, they could argue that Trump Obstructed Justice by firing Comey, since his general intent was firing Comey, and there was an ongoing criminal investigation of him, even though Comey had denied that specifically to Trump. Similarly, they could argue that telling his people to fire Mueller was Obstruction, since the Actus Reus was telling them to fire Mueller, and he intended to say the words he said. Never mind that Mueller wasn’t fired or the investigation impacted whatsoever, they had action and intent.
This is the interpretation that Barr pushed back against with his memo a year ago to Rosenstein, and that the OLC rejected. Which leaves Mueller et al arguing that ignoring DoJ rules, the OLC opinion, and centuries of Anglo/American jurisprudence, by interpreting a single Obstruction statute clause out of context, they might have been able to prove Obstruction.
Blogger SDaly said...
This entire Russia charade has done long-term, possibly irreversible damage that this country. The people behind it are evil, and I count Mueller among them..
Indeed.
That is why today was devastating.
Not to Trump. To the country.
Mueller Just Proved His Entire Operation Was A Political Hit Job That Trampled The Rule Of Law
Inga: And you were unable to comprehend Mueller’s meaning
The surname Mueller is of Russian origin. The phonecall is coming from inside the house!
Mueller is proposing a new legal standard: "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence (therefore Kafka)." Aka presumption of guilt.
Poor "Brave Brave Brave Brave Sir Robin" Mueller.
His coup attempt failed, his attempt to disenfranchise us failed. Now he just wants to go back to his private life as if it was all just a game, hoping that no one ever asks "what's the most effective way to punish the father of two girls?"
But he has nothing to worry about. We don't do that sort of thing. We are like the British Redcoats, orderly marching rank and file in open fields to the cadence of Marquess of Queensberry rules, as our officers are picked off by sniper fire.
That's how we will lose. That's how we will die.
Whoops.
To understand the importance of what Weissman, etc tried to do with their Obstruction statutory construction that effectively changed specific to general intent, one can look at the effect of intent (Mens Rea) on criminal law. So for example, let’s assume that A kills B. What is A guilty of? It depends very much on intent:
- First Degree Murder if A planned the killing of B in advance.
- Heat of Passion 2nd Degree Murder if A found B in bed with his wife
- Depraved Heart/Mind Second Degree Murder, if A shot into a crowd and accidentally hit B.
- Negligent Homicide if A got drunk and ran B over
- Manslaughter, if A accidentally ran B over
- Nothing probably, if B pulled a gun, pointed it at A, A pulled out his gun, and shot B in justified self defense.
For a guy who was so worried about "public confusion about critical aspects of the ...investigation" and ensuring "full public confidence in the outcome", he sure is doing a bang-up job of confusing people and undermining their confidence in the process.
This entire Russia charade has done long-term, possibly irreversible damage that this country.
The Great Unmasking.
Pre-Mueller, I viewed the FBI as White Hats, Boy Scouts with laser-scoped rifles. Knights in the the service of Truth Honor and Justice. What an idiot I was.
And then there's the GOPe. But I need more Stoli for that rant.
Sean David nails it:
"Also, Mueller's view of a prosecutor's role -- to prove and declare a target's innocence, rather than to charge criminality -- is a despicable affront to the rule of law and the Constitution. Cops and lawyers don't grant innocence. It is our default legal state absent conviction."
https://twitter.com/seanmdav/status/1133754620143181824
Did you know-
The 2 of the 3 intel officials JFK fired following the Bay Of Pigs debacle are blood relatives of Robert Mueller III?
I probably shouldn't have posted this, as it distracts from the issue at hand, but I find it...interesting.
When you’ve lost Fox News... Napolitano says “This was not good news for the President”
that is interesting, through William truesdale, the railroad magnate,
LOL
Inga thinks Napolitano = Fox News.
We will just add political identity functions to the long, long, very long list of things she doesnt understand.
Inga is still reeling from the revelation (to her) that even Steele, to this day, confirms the hoax dossier is completely unverified.
Which makes sense, since its all lies.
LOL
If only I had a nickel for every Perry Mason episode that ended with the Jury foreman saying "unable to exonerate and unable to pronounce innocent".....
Mueller made a perfect mess. He evidently has a bone to pick with Trump, so he insinuates Trump is guilty of obstruction... reminding us that the Russians indicted by him and alleged to have committed crimes are innocent until proven guilty but Trump cannot be called innocent. This guy is as bad, if not worse, than his friend Comey. He deliberately wanted to leave this cloud over the president's head because he wants to apply his personal view of what obstruction is rather than the DOJ's view (the standard view).
These people hate Trump more than they love the country, because they are certainly willing to seriously damage the country in order to get Trump. Who would have thought the Establishment would be so angry at having an outsider come in and wrest control from them?
Reminder:
Mueller was appointed Special Council the day after Trump interviewed him to replace Comey as FBI director.
This is similar to Gina Hastel, the current CIA director, that was the London station chief during Crossfire Hurricane.
Someone in the West Wing recommended these people to Trump. Someone Trump trusts. It is his undoing.
I wonder if Mueller ever got paid off the waiting list for Trump country club fee refunds.
Inga...Allie Oop said...
When you’ve lost Fox News... Napolitano says “This was not good news for the President”
This is just a really stupid thing to say. A stupid post with a stupid point posted by a...
These people love and worship Trump more than they love the country...
Low-IQ, religious fundamentalist disgusting hag Inga hates Trump
more than she loves the country. She said the same things about Kavanaugh and her rapey grandsons will
live to regret it. She won’t of course.
Inga, give us an outline of the Articles of Impeachment. This is a great thought experiment. Write up all of the actions you know President Trump did. Then write beside it, the underlying crime.
Mueller entered the room, farted, and left.
Browndog said...
Reminder:
Mueller was appointed Special Council the day after Trump interviewed him to replace Comey as FBI director.
This is similar to Gina Hastel, the current CIA director, that was the London station chief during Crossfire Hurricane.
Someone in the West Wing recommended these people to Trump. Someone Trump trusts. It is his undoing.
I think we all underestimated just how disgusting and terrible and corrupt Washington DC has become.
Trump's greatest accomplishment was unmasking the "Republicans" in DC and the federal bureaucracy that is truly a cancer on this nation.
Donald Trump defeated Hillary Clinton is the action.
Donald Trump defeated Hillary Clinton is the underlying crime.
The. End.
These people love and worship Trump more than they love the country...
Except we're not the ones who are running around screaming Guilty until proven innocent!
Only people who hate America and what it stands for are doing that.
Inga...Allie Oop said...
These people love and worship Trump more than they love the country...
Inga supports democrats/LLR's spying on their political opponents and open borders and gun control to disarm her political opponents.
We all know who hates this country and hates freedom.
Keep posting your little nuggets of stupidity. You are a constant reminder of just how terrible democrats are.
I don't think that Trump supporters would have wailed and moaned and cried had he lost, refused to accept it for going on three years, etc,etc... I think that those are more the signs of a cult.
Mueller must of talked for 45 minutes. The talking heads have relayed ALL that Mueller "said" during his monologue. He. SAID. a. lot.
I was traveling to Sedona and missed the Mueller preset.
Is Trump in jail yet? Is he waiting execution?
Dull minds want to know.
Barr should release the transcript or the recording of the March 5th meeting. I think Mueller lied through his teeth today, and the transcript will prove it. When Barr testified to Congress he clearly stated that he and Rosenstein pressed Mueller to explain why the non-decision on obstruction- they pressed him three times on whether this was based on the OLC regulations, and Mueller emphatically said, "No," that the OLC opinion had no bearing on the non-decision. In any case, Barr still took Mueller's work, and made the prosecutorial decision without invoking the OLC position. Case closed.
It will be interesting to see how Barr responds to this. I do believe her took the job with eyes wide open, so I doubt he's surprised Muller pulled this stunt today...while he was in Alaska.
Today' statement was Mueller's attempt to fix the mistake he made in not charging Trump or recommending Trump be charged. Mueller could have done this under the SC regulations- even with the OLC legal analysis. Mueller and his team knew their theories of obstruction were nonsense, but it was all they had on Trump. So they wrote Volume II the way they did, but refused to put their legal reputations on the line in trying to defend it in a court of law- I mean, seriously, they aren't even willing to defend it before Jerry Nadler's committee- this should tell you something about how strongly they believe in the theory.
This is also why Mueller didn't invoke the OLC analysis in the March 5th meeting- to do so would have required Mueller to defend the underlying obstruction theory given that Barr would then have asked Mueller why he didn't just file a recommendation for prosecution after Trump leaves office. Mueller wanted the insinuation without putting his team's legal reputation on the line defending it. If you don't recommend charging the President, you don't have defend the reasoning of Volume II.
Mueller miscalculated Barr's reaction to this ploy. I think Mueller expected heavy redactions of Volume II, and he expected that Barr would be too afraid to make the prosecutorial decision for him. Barr upended Mueller's plans by making the decision without relying on the OLC analysis, and he released the report with minimal redactions, thus undercutting the plan to leak about the report. Today, Mueller tried to fix those mistakes, but in doing so he had to lie about his position on the OLC analysis- remember, it wasn't just Barr and Mueller in that room on March 5th.
Inga loves her Putin-pal-supplied hoax disinformation dossier more than she loves her country.
YW: "..remember, it wasn't just Barr and Mueller in that room on March 5th."
This.
And we might just hear more about this soon.
Undercover Huber
@JohnWHuber
At least Robert Mueller *finally* gets to set that satisfying Out of Office email message:
“The Special Counsel’s Office is now closed. Please read my report - after all, you paid for it. For any other issues please contact my spirit animal Andrew Weissmann on 1-800-IMPEACH”
Barr and Mueller are supposedly old friends. I suspect that's over now.
Barr testified that Mueller told him three times that his decision not to come to a conclusion on an obstruction charge was not because of department policy against charging a sitting President. Today Mueller implied that that policy was the reason. So either Barr committed perjury, Mueller lied to Barr, or Mueller is lying now.
As several have pointed out, there were multiple witnesses to the conversations Barr testified about, and he testified under oath. It's not likely that he perjured himself. So Mueller either lied to Barr or is lying now. The only way he could be telling the truth is if his old friend committed perjury. That's not likely to endear him to Barr.
what's it like in Sedona, I haven't really experienced a dry heat except transferring at Houston airport on the way to vegas, but that in the beginning of may,
why are they not prosecuted:
https://dailycaller.com/2019/05/29/fbi-official-leaks-gifts/
just like why is Assange in the dock, but the times the post and the guardian not there with him,
no good deed goes unpunished:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/05/29/boris-johnson-victim-plot-stop-brexit-faces-criminal-trial-leave/
ah rory stewart, the deep state legacy candidate, was smoking opium in iran, that explains a great deal,
Blogger Inga...Allie Oop said..."“What Mueller did today was devastating.”
Indeed it was, for Trump and his Cultists."
Mueller won't testify. He won't take questions. Aren't you even a little curious as to why?
what's it like in Sedona, I haven't really experienced a dry heat except transferring at Houston airport on the way to vegas, but that in the beginning of may,
I live in Tucson and Sedona seems relatively humid. We hiked Bell Rock in 70 degree weather and sweat a lot more than we do in Tucson. It is a beautiful place that reminds me there is more to life than politics.
it doesn't seem like a terribly wet heat today though,
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2019/05/talking-about-the-times.php
Original Mike--
Curiosity? That superannuated snakehandling fundamentalist maniac, clinging to her hate and religion?
You can blame all this on Jeff Sessions. I thought he would be Trump's best pick, and he turned out to be the worst.
01) Put Rosenstein in as DAG.
02) Recused himself from Russia Probe
03) Resisted all attempts to un-recuse OR replace Mueller OR narrow the Special counsel review to just looking at collusion.
04) Had only two preferred options: A) don't help Trump B) Resign.
Anyway, Barr has shown himself to be 10x superior. Graham should subpoena Mueller and have him testify. Let Mueller defend his apponting Storz and Lisa page and putting 12 Democrats on the team. Or taking 2 years. Or writing a 450 page tome on Obstruction that concludes nothing.
People should be mad as hell that the Democrats are just playing games instead of working with the Republicans and Trump to pass legislation that's good for the country. But instead, they seem to be enjoying it. Look at the Creepy republican traitor Amash, who got a standing O from his townhall in Michigan.
Maybe everyone is so well off now, no change to the status quo is desired.
I hated the Sessions pick from day one.
The Democrats can talk forever. And Messiah Bob Mueller can make all the crpytic comments he wants BUT no one is going to impeach Trump for obstructing a probe into a crime he didn't commit.
Especially, since Trump didn't fire Mueller, didn't stop the probe, and gave him written answers and told everyone to cooperate.
The Legal Beagles can nit pick all day. No one cares.
"I hated the Sessions pick from day one."
Why?
He's a weasel.
Seriously, I saw him as weak and ineffective. I hated his positon on civil forfeiture.
What did you see in him?
Session was one of the very few in the Senate who took the H1B Visa issue seriously, asking for example why any American should go into a STEM field when businesses clearly preferred hiring immigrants whom they could manipulate and ultimately pay less. I'll wager that very few Althouse readers even think it's an issue, and couldn't care less if the entire American work force were replaced by cheaper imports -- doctors, scientists, nurses, professors, etc. Sessions cared about that and asked the right questions.
That being said, I thought Sessions blew it with his recusal shenanigans and therefore had to go.
He recused himself because he talked to the Russian ambassador a couple of times? Sessions is an idiot.
I live in Tucson and Sedona seems relatively humid.
My neighbor, across the street, says he has lived here 30 years and this is then nicest May he can remember.
Innocent until proven guilty is no more, sayeth Robert Mueller.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा