Deplorables.
Get your popcorn ready for Jim Jordan's cross examination of swamp rat Mueller
- Thread starter Robo
- Start date
Deplorables.
Adolf_Twitler
Verified User
Robo
Verified User
Excuse me please, but might I ask you if you read the Mueller report? Can you tell me what Mueller’s report says about when he first, (what date), he concluded there was no Trump Russian collusion? I’d also like to know what the Mueller report says about Mueller’s reasoning behind hiring so many rabid, mad junkyard dog, Hillary donating & supporting Democrats for his investigation team. What does it say about the Steel dossier and FISA warrants? What does it say about Hillary & the DNC paying for the Steel dossier? What did Mueller report about all of the evidence the Congress & Judicial Watch uncovered concerning the Obama’s DOJ, FBI & Intel agencies attempts to keep Trump from becoming President & to frame him after he became President. What did the Mueller report say about the hundreds of Obama administration’s unmasking’s of American citizens, during the 2016 campaign? Was Mueller investigating collusion & obstruction of justice that was going on during the election and afterward, or was it really about framing Donald J. Trump of a crime? Is that explanation in the Mueller report? Since Mueller didn’t or couldn’t indict Trump for a crime, why didn’t he say Trump was considered to be innocent of any crime unless or until proven guilty, instead of saying he couldn’t say Trump didn’t commit a crime? Was that explained in Mueller’s report?
Is that what the Mueller Report says, or is that what you say?
If an American, or for that matter, anybody in America can’t be proven to be guilty of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt, aren’t they to be considered by American law “INNOCENT?” Why did Mueller make that distinction for those Russians he indicted and will never prosecute, but he, Mueller made no such distinction for the President Of The United States?
Robo
Verified User
People thinking about what? Hating Trump, right?
Robo
Verified User
You , Barr, and Jordan better get your CROW ready![/img]
I'm gonna have plenty of popcorn ready for that raking over of the swamp rat Mueller. "Crow' taste just like chicken! You'll love it!
Nope, in this case, they told the lawyers what they were going to do and charged them with finding legal justification. They don't need to be right, but have enough that they can deny revealing what they have done. It is buying time till the election passes.
Tranquillus in Exile
New member
In Scottish law there is a verdict of 'not proven', which means it's likely the guy did it but they can't prove it, so they have to let him go. If there were such a verdict in US law, that would be Trump, see?
Btw, has the AG opened a criminal investigation into any of this stuff, or is that all Barr talk?
Robo
Verified User
Oh! OK! Then it's only fair & balanced that Mueller should have offered the American rule of jurist prudence, i.e., "innocent until proven guilty," to the Russians he, (Mueller), indicted, but in the next breath used Scottish law to indict the President Of The United States publicly by 'declaring him guilty but unproven so," correct? Swamp justice at its best!
A silly question on your part. He concluded that there was no Russian conclusion at the same time he concluded that Trump smoked at the age of 16. Mueller states he never investigated the question of collusion since collusion isn't a crime. Instead he investigated conspiracy. He never came to the conclusion there was no collusion so there is no date that he reached such a conclusion.
I am curious as to how many people you think were on the Mueller team that donated to Hillary? 2? 5? 100? Mueller had 17 main lawyers. Of those I can find only 2 that donated to Hillary. 2 out of 17 is hardly "so many". The question is why do you feel the need to lie about who worked for Mueller?
You probably shouldn't ask questions that you don't know the answer to. FISA is mentioned in Trump's tweets and how his attempts to interfere with the investigation constitute obstruction.
The Mueller report doesn't deal with paranoid RW fantasies. It does however state that the intelligence agencies came to the conclusion that Russia helped Trump win the election and how the WH lied about contacts with Russia.
Again, the Mueller report doesn't deal with paranoid RW fantasies. I suggest you read the IG report for that one.
More RW paranoid fantasies. The Mueller report deals with facts such as the statement by Donald J Trump stating ""I have no dealings with Russia. I have no deals that could happen with Russia because we've stayed away." And then it cites Cohen and a document Trump signed to license a Trump branded hotel in Russia. I wonder why Donald J Trump lied about his dealings with Russia, don't you?
Because he said that since Trump couldn't be indicted under DOJ policy by saying he committed a crime it would put Trump in the position of not being able to defend himself in court.
Yes.
It is in the Mueller report.
Not what the Mueller report says.
Robo
Verified User
How many Democrats and Republicans are on Mueller’s team?
The Special Counsel’s office had made public the identities of 17 attorney staff members through March 21. Their backgrounds are summarized here.
Through public records, we were able to independently confirm that at least 12 people on Mueller’s staff are registered Democrats.
They ones we confirmed are Greg Andres, Rush Atkinson, Ryan Dickey, Michael Dreeben, Kyle Freeny, Andrew Goldstein, Adam Jed, Elizabeth Prelogar, James Quarles, Jeannie Rhee, Brandon Van Grack, and Andrew Weissmann.
Another member of Mueller’s team -- Aaron Zelinsky -- has been reported to be a registered Democrat by both the Washington Post and the Daily Caller. The Daily Caller also reported that Zelinsky wrote, "I’m a Democrat," in a Huffington Post column https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-...-checking-donald-trumps-claims-about-Mueller/
For the umpteenth time, stupid fuck. Mueller was not acting in a prosecutorial role with Trump.
Dense fucking moron.
Robo
Verified User
Golly GEEEEE! And here In thought “collusion” WAS “CONSPIRACY?” As a matter of fact dictionary dot com says, “noun
COLLUSION,
1.a secret agreement, especially for fraudulent or treacherous purposes; conspiracy: Some of his employees were acting in collusion to rob him.
Actually out of Mueller’s 17 lawyers 13 were democrats and there’s no political affiliation known for the other 4. (See my earlier post) Two of Mueller’s lawyers donated to the Hillary Clinton campaign & one of them was actually Hillary Clinton’s lawyer.
I don’t know about you, but I find that an outrageous conflict of interest!
So you say, as though your word is gospel, but you deliver zero evidence of what you say. Please supply the page number and paragraph of Robert Mueller’s report proving what you say. I don’t believe you’ve read the Mueller report. I believe you’re posting “out yo ass!”
Page and paragraph of the Mueller report please!
Page and paragraph of the Mueller report please!
Page and paragraph of the Mueller report please!
Please supply the article or amendment in the Constitution that says a sitting President cannot be indicted for a federal crime.
Robo
Verified User
For the umpteenth time, stupid fuck. Mueller was not acting in a prosecutorial role with Trump.
Dense fucking moron.
Whatever you say trash-mouth child! Yo Momma is proud!
So registering as a Democrat now makes them rabid, mad junkyard dog, Hillary donating ?
It seems you are trying to move the goal posts to the other end of the field on this one.
You cannot understand that people can do their jobs regardless of their party affiliation. Mueller and Comey are lifetime Republicans. Most of FBI people are Repubs.
From the Mueller report - page 180-181
As an initial matter, this Office evaluated potentially criminal conduct that involved the
collective action of multiple individuals not under the rubric of "collusion," but through the lens
of conspiracy law. ... But collusion is not a specific offense or
theory of liability found in the U.S. Code; nor is it a term of art in federal criminal law.
...
For that reason, this Office's focus in resolving the question of joint criminal liability was
on conspiracy as defined in federal law, not the commonly discussed term "collusion.
The problem seems to be you want to completely ignore reality and the law. If we follow your argument then no Republican can ever investigate a Democrat and no Democrat can ever investigate an Republican. The problem is that there is only ever one AG and that AG is appointed by one party. Rosenstein is a Republican, Mueller is a Republican. They are the two that ran the investigation and hired the people involved. Surely they would have been aware of bias on the part of anyone on the team. The issue is that the law states that political party can't be a consideration in hiring at the DoJ. You are demanding that the law be violated.
Page 110-112 Trump's tweets to obstruct justice by having Sessions reverse his recusal.
I would suggest you start with Page 23 of part 2 which cites Trump's claim he had "no dealings with Russia" and page 68-71 of part I. Then you can go to page 135-141 of part II. On Page 149, Mueller states Trump failed to directly answer the questions asked of him about the Trump Tower Moscow project. Finally you can conclude with the addendum of Trump's answers to the written questions located at page C7.
It is actually a rather long tale that is covered over quite some time in the report. You don't get the answer by reading one page or one paragraph. It requires you to read the entire report or at least many pages.
Part II Page 1-6
Please cite the article or amendment that makes abortion a crime. Your diversion is nonsensical since laws and regulations are not contained in the US Constitution. There is no DoJ in the Constitution. There is no FBI in the Constituiton. There isn't even an airforce in the Constituiton. Does that mean none of those things exist?
There is a department legal ruling that Mueller cites in his report. The Constitution allows Congress to make laws. Congress passed a law creating the DoJ. Congress passed a law giving the DoJ the power to create internal regulations.
I particularly like the part where Mueller states they felt they had enough information about Trump and his actions so they felt they wouldn't get anything more by subpoenaing him. What do you think Mueller will say his conclusions were that made him reach that decision? Does he think there is enough circumstantial evidence to show Trump had intent in obstructing justice. He lays out how circumstantial evidence is the normal way to prove obstruction. The problem you have Robo is you haven't read the report and you somehow think there is some smoking gun in the report that can prove Mueller was biased. That isn't the case at all. You will be choking on your popcorn if the questions you want asked are actually asked and Mueller is allowed to answer because the answers are already there and most of the country doesn't realize that yet.
The actual evidence in the report is pretty damning as laid out. If this evidence existed against Obama I would be calling for his impeachment. If half of what is there existed against Obama you would be calling for his impeachment.
Once Trump understood that collusion was not a crime, he said it over and over. Mueller was not investigating Trump, but the Russian interference in the 2016 campaign. Robo, stop with the collusion. It is not now or ever about collusion. Mueller was not only not investigating Trump but not looking for collusion. Manafort shows how connected Trump people were to the Russians.
Robo
Verified User
When they're selected as the overwhelming majority of lawyers to investigate a Republican, I'm saying it's an outrageous & rabid partisan criminal conflict of interest, what do you call it?
Robo
Verified User
Apparently, Bobby Mueller, like you, never thought to look in a dictionary before he made his absurd distinction between collusion and conspiracy. Had he & you, both should have noticed that the two words are synonymous & contrary to public opinion, collusion/conspiracy to commit a crime is a crime. That, leaves me to inquire just how many of Trump’s supporters, campaign workers & or cabinet members have been indicted by Mueller for collusion/conspiracy? I’ll help you out ZERO!
Robo
Verified User
Where have I ever suggested such? I suggest that any honest, logical & fair person would agree that an investigation of one political party of the other having 17 investigators, would at the very least strive for an equal number of party members from each and disqualify any investigator investigating Donald Trump who is & was the lawyer of Hillary Clinton, simply in the name of fairness, honesty & justice.
You’re either unaware or purposely ignorant of the fact that the Washington D.C. swamp has its fair share of “never Trump” Republicans who are as mad dog rabid haters of Trump as their rabid mad dog Democrat allies in the coup-de-qua to unseat Donald Trump from his Presidency. Rosenstein offered to ware a wire in conversation with Trump. Mueller, in conversation with Trump the day before he was selected by Rosenstein as special counsel discussed with Trump his reason for firing his, (Mueller’s), buddy James Comey, thereby making Mueller a witness in the Trump investigation meaning he, (Mueller) should have recused himself from any investigation of Trump.
I’m perfectly positive they knew very well of their OWN rabid mad junkyard dog hatred & bias toward Trump.
Yeah! That’s why each party in power hires their own party members for 99.9% of every open job! So much for Washington D.C. swamp critters obeying the laws!