The Mueller Report

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:When you Democrats start your impeachment, Mueller will be forced to testify under oath. None of them cares about his old age and failing health. He looks to have aged 15 years during these past two years.

Trump appears to be about 300.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Mueller just walked back yesterday’s statement


Kerri Kupec, spokeswoman for the Department of Justice and Peter Carr, spokesman for the Special Counsel's Office, released the following statement:

The Attorney General has previously stated that the Special Counsel repeatedly affirmed that he was not saying that, but for the OLC opinion, he would have found the President obstructed justice. The Special Counsel's report and his statement today made clear that the office concluded it would not reach a determination - one way or the other - about whether the President committed a crime. There is no conflict between these statements.

Barr released this. Sorry to burst your pro-Trump bubble.

For anyone who still believes in the validity of the Russia investigation.
https://www.dailywire.com/news/47868/breaking-new-damaging-info-comes-out-disgraced-fbi-ryan-saavedra

Wait, what? In that FOX News / Dailywire piece they are claiming some kind of malfeasance by Strzok because he didn't warn the Trump campaign about the investigation? They were investigating Papadopoulous, Manafort and others who were RUNNING the Trump campaign. He was supposed to tip off the very people he was investigating?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Mueller just walked back yesterday’s statement


Kerri Kupec, spokeswoman for the Department of Justice and Peter Carr, spokesman for the Special Counsel's Office, released the following statement:

The Attorney General has previously stated that the Special Counsel repeatedly affirmed that he was not saying that, but for the OLC opinion, he would have found the President obstructed justice. The Special Counsel's report and his statement today made clear that the office concluded it would not reach a determination - one way or the other - about whether the President committed a crime. There is no conflict between these statements.

Barr released this. Sorry to burst your pro-Trump bubble.

For anyone who still believes in the validity of the Russia investigation.
https://www.dailywire.com/news/47868/breaking-new-damaging-info-comes-out-disgraced-fbi-ryan-saavedra

Wait, what? In that FOX News / Dailywire piece they are claiming some kind of malfeasance by Strzok because he didn't warn the Trump campaign about the investigation? They were investigating Papadopoulous, Manafort and others who were RUNNING the Trump campaign. He was supposed to tip off the very people he was investigating?

Of course he wasn't supposed to.... how else could they possibly secure FISA warrants to surveil the Trump campaign if he told them?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
AG William Barr is fearless! Good for him.

Yes, he learned from Trump that the base doesn't care about lying.

If you mean trumps base doesn’t care about the lying media, that would be correct.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Mueller just walked back yesterday’s statement


Kerri Kupec, spokeswoman for the Department of Justice and Peter Carr, spokesman for the Special Counsel's Office, released the following statement:

The Attorney General has previously stated that the Special Counsel repeatedly affirmed that he was not saying that, but for the OLC opinion, he would have found the President obstructed justice. The Special Counsel's report and his statement today made clear that the office concluded it would not reach a determination - one way or the other - about whether the President committed a crime. There is no conflict between these statements.

Barr released this. Sorry to burst your pro-Trump bubble.

For anyone who still believes in the validity of the Russia investigation.
https://www.dailywire.com/news/47868/breaking-new-damaging-info-comes-out-disgraced-fbi-ryan-saavedra

Wait, what? In that FOX News / Dailywire piece they are claiming some kind of malfeasance by Strzok because he didn't warn the Trump campaign about the investigation? They were investigating Papadopoulous, Manafort and others who were RUNNING the Trump campaign. He was supposed to tip off the very people he was investigating?

Of course he wasn't supposed to.... how else could they possibly secure FISA warrants to surveil the Trump campaign if he told them?

That doesn't make sense, PP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Mueller just walked back yesterday’s statement


Kerri Kupec, spokeswoman for the Department of Justice and Peter Carr, spokesman for the Special Counsel's Office, released the following statement:

The Attorney General has previously stated that the Special Counsel repeatedly affirmed that he was not saying that, but for the OLC opinion, he would have found the President obstructed justice. The Special Counsel's report and his statement today made clear that the office concluded it would not reach a determination - one way or the other - about whether the President committed a crime. There is no conflict between these statements.

Barr released this. Sorry to burst your pro-Trump bubble.

For anyone who still believes in the validity of the Russia investigation.
https://www.dailywire.com/news/47868/breaking-new-damaging-info-comes-out-disgraced-fbi-ryan-saavedra

Wait, what? In that FOX News / Dailywire piece they are claiming some kind of malfeasance by Strzok because he didn't warn the Trump campaign about the investigation? They were investigating Papadopoulous, Manafort and others who were RUNNING the Trump campaign. He was supposed to tip off the very people he was investigating?

Of course he wasn't supposed to.... how else could they possibly secure FISA warrants to surveil the Trump campaign if he told them?

That doesn't make sense, PP.

Sure it does. It was all part of Strzok's, et al, strategy.

[Anonymous]

If there was ever any question that the Mueller report was written to attempt to damage the president, despite the fact that Mueller was unable to identify or indict him or any members of his family with any crimes, this might clear up the confusion.

Here is what was in the Mueller report regarding the call from John Doud to Flynn's attorney:



Here is the transcript of the call:



Note what Mueller's team omitted from their report.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If there was ever any question that the Mueller report was written to attempt to damage the president, despite the fact that Mueller was unable to identify or indict him or any members of his family with any crimes, this might clear up the confusion.

Here is what was in the Mueller report regarding the call from John Doud to Flynn's attorney:



Here is the transcript of the call:



Note what Mueller's team omitted from their report.

What is the big conspiracy you see here?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Mueller just walked back yesterday’s statement


Kerri Kupec, spokeswoman for the Department of Justice and Peter Carr, spokesman for the Special Counsel's Office, released the following statement:

The Attorney General has previously stated that the Special Counsel repeatedly affirmed that he was not saying that, but for the OLC opinion, he would have found the President obstructed justice. The Special Counsel's report and his statement today made clear that the office concluded it would not reach a determination - one way or the other - about whether the President committed a crime. There is no conflict between these statements.

Barr released this. Sorry to burst your pro-Trump bubble.

For anyone who still believes in the validity of the Russia investigation.
https://www.dailywire.com/news/47868/breaking-new-damaging-info-comes-out-disgraced-fbi-ryan-saavedra

Wait, what? In that FOX News / Dailywire piece they are claiming some kind of malfeasance by Strzok because he didn't warn the Trump campaign about the investigation? They were investigating Papadopoulous, Manafort and others who were RUNNING the Trump campaign. He was supposed to tip off the very people he was investigating?

Of course he wasn't supposed to.... how else could they possibly secure FISA warrants to surveil the Trump campaign if he told them?

Bingo.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If there was ever any question that the Mueller report was written to attempt to damage the president, despite the fact that Mueller was unable to identify or indict him or any members of his family with any crimes, this might clear up the confusion.

Here is what was in the Mueller report regarding the call from John Doud to Flynn's attorney:



Here is the transcript of the call:



Note what Mueller's team omitted from their report.

What is the big conspiracy you see here?

Dowd wanted a heads up “not only for the president, but for the country” and wasn’t asking for “any confidential information.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If there was ever any question that the Mueller report was written to attempt to damage the president, despite the fact that Mueller was unable to identify or indict him or any members of his family with any crimes, this might clear up the confusion.

Here is what was in the Mueller report regarding the call from John Doud to Flynn's attorney:



Here is the transcript of the call:



Note what Mueller's team omitted from their report.

What is the big conspiracy you see here?

Dowd wanted a heads up “not only for the president, but for the country” and wasn’t asking for “any confidential information.”

Trump (and Dowd): L'etat, c'est moi.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If there was ever any question that the Mueller report was written to attempt to damage the president, despite the fact that Mueller was unable to identify or indict him or any members of his family with any crimes, this might clear up the confusion.

Here is what was in the Mueller report regarding the call from John Doud to Flynn's attorney:



Here is the transcript of the call:



Note what Mueller's team omitted from their report.

What is the big conspiracy you see here?

Dowd wanted a heads up “not only for the president, but for the country” and wasn’t asking for “any confidential information.”

National security. Wasn't big-T Flynn supposed to be the NSA?

[Anonymous]

Case closed.

The President has been exonerated.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If there was ever any question that the Mueller report was written to attempt to damage the president, despite the fact that Mueller was unable to identify or indict him or any members of his family with any crimes, this might clear up the confusion.

Here is what was in the Mueller report regarding the call from John Doud to Flynn's attorney:



Here is the transcript of the call:



Note what Mueller's team omitted from their report.

I am not seeing a material difference. Please explain. I see one attorney, calling another, asking for a heads up and reminding the attorney of the Preident's affection for his client (ie implied dangled pardon)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Case closed.

The President has been exonerated.

Robert Mueller "President not exonerated"