The Mueller Report

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:More than 370 former federal prosecutors who worked in Republican and Democratic administrations have signed on to a statement asserting special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s findings would have produced obstruction charges against President Trump — if not for the office he held.

The statement — signed by myriad former career government employees as well as high-profile political appointees — offers a rebuttal to Attorney General William P. Barr’s determination that the evidence Mueller uncovered was “not sufficient” to establish that Trump committed a crime.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-would-have-been-charged-with-obstruction-were-he-not-president-hundreds-of-former-federal-prosecutors-assert/2019/05/06/e4946a1a-7006-11e9-9f06-5fc2ee80027a_story.html?utm_term=.ebc6314258d9

Things ain't looking too good for Trump, Barr, and Rosenstein. Hmmmm....

The Washington post? Really? The gals who gave us two years of the Russian collusion lie that Barr and mueller exonerated the president on? Oh, okay.

[Anonymous]

Can someone put us out of our misery and end this presidency? Just give the ass a deal. Resign now and we won’t prosecute you or your family. You’ll get to keep your business. Just walk away and never come back. Take your trashy wife with you and. Your dumb kids too. Just go.

Before he starts a war with Iran and allows Putin to hack into more voting systems.

Just get rid of him.

[Anonymous]

500+ now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Can someone put us out of our misery and end this presidency? Just give the ass a deal. Resign now and we won’t prosecute you or your family. You’ll get to keep your business. Just walk away and never come back. Take your trashy wife with you and. Your dumb kids too. Just go.

Before he starts a war with Iran and allows Putin to hack into more voting systems.

Just get rid of him.

A-freaking-men. Just make this miserable slime ball go away. I used to wish he would get his just desserts in jail. Now I just want him to resign, keep trying to make money on his awful hotels and go.the.h*&.away.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone put us out of our misery and end this presidency? Just give the ass a deal. Resign now and we won’t prosecute you or your family. You’ll get to keep your business. Just walk away and never come back. Take your trashy wife with you and. Your dumb kids too. Just go.

Before he starts a war with Iran and allows Putin to hack into more voting systems.

Just get rid of him.

A-freaking-men. Just make this miserable slime ball go away. I used to wish he would get his just desserts in jail. Now I just want him to resign, keep trying to make money on his awful hotels and go.the.h*&.away.

Trump 2020!

Not tired of winning.

[Anonymous]

Mueller was the prosecutor in this instance.

A prosecutor has one role in this case: based on evidence to prosecute or not. He chose not to prosecute. He waffled on obstruction--but, that means he chose not to prosecute.

If Congress wishes to prosecute, that is their prerogative. But, Comey chose not to do so. We don't know why--but,my guess is that he would not be able to win it. Why? Because wanting to obstruct justice is not the same as obstructing it. He did not fire the people he told to fire Mueller. Had he wanted to do so, he could have. He turned over voluminous amounts of documents. He did not exert Executive Privilege.

Who really tried to obstruct justice? Those who leaked fake documents to media. Those who started an investigation based on questionable sources.

Wonder how many other political foes have been spied upon?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Mueller was the prosecutor in this instance.

A prosecutor has one role in this case: based on evidence to prosecute or not. He chose not to prosecute. He waffled on obstruction--but, that means he chose not to prosecute.

If Congress wishes to prosecute, that is their prerogative. But, Comey chose not to do so. We don't know why--but,my guess is that he would not be able to win it. Why? Because wanting to obstruct justice is not the same as obstructing it. He did not fire the people he told to fire Mueller. Had he wanted to do so, he could have. He turned over voluminous amounts of documents. He did not exert Executive Privilege.

Who really tried to obstruct justice? Those who leaked fake documents to media. Those who started an investigation based on questionable sources.

Wonder how many other political foes have been spied upon?

Time to join the real world.

First, Comey was FBI, it isn't traditionally the FBI role to do anything other than investigate. Hence the "I" in FBI. But in cosulting professionals, they felt they didn't have a winnable case, hence no prosecution of Hillary.

Second, the DOJ guidelines are clear about indicting a sitting president. Mueller cited those guidelines at the top of the report. His mandate was NEVER going to be to decide whether or not the President should be indicted. If the White House wants to waive those guidelines (they didn't) or Barr wanted a direct decision (he didn't) then perhaps the answer would be different.

Third, what fake documents were leaked?

Fourth, "spying" is different than surveillance in a counterintelligence investigation. Just this morning in testimony, FBI Director Wray (a Trump appointee) indicated the same.

You need new sources of information.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Mueller was the prosecutor in this instance.

A prosecutor has one role in this case: based on evidence to prosecute or not. He chose not to prosecute. He waffled on obstruction--but, that means he chose not to prosecute.

If Congress wishes to prosecute, that is their prerogative. But, Comey chose not to do so. We don't know why--but,my guess is that he would not be able to win it. Why? Because wanting to obstruct justice is not the same as obstructing it. He did not fire the people he told to fire Mueller. Had he wanted to do so, he could have. He turned over voluminous amounts of documents. He did not exert Executive Privilege.

Who really tried to obstruct justice? Those who leaked fake documents to media. Those who started an investigation based on questionable sources.

Wonder how many other political foes have been spied upon?

Wray says "spying" is not the word he'd use when it comes to court-authorized intelligence gathering. "To me the key question is making sure it's done by the book, consistent with our lawful authorities. That's the key question, different people use different colloquial terms"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Mueller was the prosecutor in this instance.

A prosecutor has one role in this case: based on evidence to prosecute or not. He chose not to prosecute. He waffled on obstruction--but, that means he chose not to prosecute.

If Congress wishes to prosecute, that is their prerogative. But, Comey chose not to do so. We don't know why--but,my guess is that he would not be able to win it. Why? Because wanting to obstruct justice is not the same as obstructing it. He did not fire the people he told to fire Mueller. Had he wanted to do so, he could have. He turned over voluminous amounts of documents. He did not exert Executive Privilege.

Who really tried to obstruct justice? Those who leaked fake documents to media. Those who started an investigation based on questionable sources.

Wonder how many other political foes have been spied upon?

Time to join the real world.

First, Comey was FBI, it isn't traditionally the FBI role to do anything other than investigate. Hence the "I" in FBI. But in cosulting professionals, they felt they didn't have a winnable case, hence no prosecution of Hillary.

Second, the DOJ guidelines are clear about indicting a sitting president. Mueller cited those guidelines at the top of the report. His mandate was NEVER going to be to decide whether or not the President should be indicted. If the White House wants to waive those guidelines (they didn't) or Barr wanted a direct decision (he didn't) then perhaps the answer would be different.

Third, what fake documents were leaked?

Fourth, "spying" is different than surveillance in a counterintelligence investigation. Just this morning in testimony, FBI Director Wray (a Trump appointee) indicated the same.

You need new sources of information.

PP made a mistake. Said "Comey" instead of "Mueller."

Secondly, yes, Mueller cited the OLC guidelines, but also indicated this is NOT why he chose not to indict.

Spying is surveillance. They are synonyms. Potato, Potahto.

What fake "documents" were leaked? Ask Strzok. He thinks the CIA leaked false information.

[Anonymous]

Wray says "spying" is not the word he'd use when it comes to court-authorized intelligence gathering. "To me the key question is making sure it's done by the book, consistent with our lawful authorities. That's the key question, different people use different colloquial terms"

I'm also watching that hearing. He did not say it wasn't spying--just that is not the word he would use. "A rose by any other name........."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Wray says "spying" is not the word he'd use when it comes to court-authorized intelligence gathering. "To me the key question is making sure it's done by the book, consistent with our lawful authorities. That's the key question, different people use different colloquial terms"

I'm also watching that hearing. He did not say it wasn't spying--just that is not the word he would use. "A rose by any other name........."

I don't think a legally obtained warrant is "spying" in the manner that Barr implied in his testimony.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Mueller was the prosecutor in this instance.

A prosecutor has one role in this case: based on evidence to prosecute or not. He chose not to prosecute. He waffled on obstruction--but, that means he chose not to prosecute.

If Congress wishes to prosecute, that is their prerogative. But, Comey chose not to do so. We don't know why--but,my guess is that he would not be able to win it. Why? Because wanting to obstruct justice is not the same as obstructing it. He did not fire the people he told to fire Mueller. Had he wanted to do so, he could have. He turned over voluminous amounts of documents. He did not exert Executive Privilege.

Who really tried to obstruct justice? Those who leaked fake documents to media. Those who started an investigation based on questionable sources.

Wonder how many other political foes have been spied upon?

Time to join the real world.



First, Comey was FBI, it isn't traditionally the FBI role to do anything other than investigate. Hence the "I" in FBI. But in cosulting professionals, they felt they didn't have a winnable case, hence no prosecution of Hillary.

Second, the DOJ guidelines are clear about indicting a sitting president. Mueller cited those guidelines at the top of the report. His mandate was NEVER going to be to decide whether or not the President should be indicted. If the White House wants to waive those guidelines (they didn't) or Barr wanted a direct decision (he didn't) then perhaps the answer would be different.

Third, what fake documents were leaked?

Fourth, "spying" is different than surveillance in a counterintelligence investigation. Just this morning in testimony, FBI Director Wray (a Trump appointee) indicated the same.

You need new sources of information.

+1 There's some serious tinfoil hat on this thread.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:More than 370 former federal prosecutors who worked in Republican and Democratic administrations have signed on to a statement asserting special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s findings would have produced obstruction charges against President Trump — if not for the office he held.

The statement — signed by myriad former career government employees as well as high-profile political appointees — offers a rebuttal to Attorney General William P. Barr’s determination that the evidence Mueller uncovered was “not sufficient” to establish that Trump committed a crime.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-would-have-been-charged-with-obstruction-were-he-not-president-hundreds-of-former-federal-prosecutors-assert/2019/05/06/e4946a1a-7006-11e9-9f06-5fc2ee80027a_story.html?utm_term=.ebc6314258d9

Things ain't looking too good for Trump, Barr, and Rosenstein. Hmmmm....

The Washington post? Really? The gals who gave us two years of the Russian collusion lie that Barr and mueller exonerated the president on? Oh, okay.

Over 400 prosecutors have signed on to the statement now (which was published on Medium and reported by every major news outlet). But if you want to call if fake news, well, keep hanging out at Breitbart.

https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/802936.page

[Anonymous]

More obstructing of justice...
https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/442490-white-house-orders-mcgahn-to-defy-house-subpoena

White House orders McGahn to defy House subpoena
The White House has ordered former White House counsel Don McGahn not to turn over documents to Congress because President Trump may exert executive privilege to block their release.

Pat Cipollone, the current top White House lawyer, wrote a letter on Tuesday asking the House Judiciary Committee to go through the White House to request documents related to special counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation.

[Anonymous]

It's almost like Trump shieding something, that he doesn't want all these people to testify, is being shielded on hi tax returns, etc.

He may not be guilty of anything, but he is acting like someone who is guilty of something.