Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
nope, they involved material from the report. multiple things can be going on at once, but one has material from it's own investigation is allowed to speak into the reason why it's there. otherwise the material is invalid.Those questions concerned ongoing matters. Did they not?It's ironic that people would talk about obstruction when Mueller's testimony yesterday was an exercsize in just that.
He was more determined to avoid answering important questions than he was answering them
sure he was allowed. he avoided answering in fear of perjury. I wish you all would learn the law if you want to hold a discussion about it.he was not allowed to answer them... did you not see the directive from the DOJ telling him what he could talk on and what he could not talk about in the hearing, which came out 2 days ago?It's ironic that people would talk about obstruction when Mueller's testimony yesterday was an exercsize in just that.
He was more determined to avoid answering important questions than he was answering them
nope, they were about how the report was constructed. With that thought then the fact the report was made public affected every litigation in progress.Those questions concerned ongoing matters. Did they not?It's ironic that people would talk about obstruction when Mueller's testimony yesterday was an exercsize in just that.
He was more determined to avoid answering important questions than he was answering them
I watched Bill Clinton go through more than this over a blow job! He was investigated for four years! He got impeached for lying over consensual adult sex and I don't even think there was penetrations!!!You could be right about the investigation being partisan. All the facts are not out yet. I am willing to let the whole truth come out. Every bit of it.Foxfyre, the investigation into the "matter" (the Obama/Crooked Hillary plot to overthrow our democracy) is just beginning. Get used to it. Mueller should be in prison after the "matter" is settled.
I don't know whether he should be in prison just yet, but I do believe the Mueller investigation was viciously partisan and was conducted with a single goal in mind: destroy President Trump. And in his and his team's eagerness to do that, many good people had their names dragged through the mud and they and their families were seriously harmed personally, professionally, and economically. That was wrong. That was evil.
Mueller is either so senile he doesn't have a clue or he bald faced lied when he said his team didn't leak to the press. There was leak after leak after leak all suggesting they were finding terrible things about the President and/or his closest people and thus damaging him as much as possible leading up to the 2018 election. THAT is election meddling that matters. The Russians or any other foreign powers were teensy blips on the radar compared with that.
I've been around the block enough times to become thoroughly jaded when it comes to believe anybody protected by the left will be accountable for any kind of malfeasance. So I don't hold out strong hope that the I.G. and/or the Durham Investigation will come through for us and expose all the total corruption that existed in all that. But I do hope.
The issue I have is the way Trump has reacted to the investigation. The part that's all described in the Obstruction Diaries.
Like a 12-year old boy who can't get a girlfriend because he's got too many pimples.
Good God that is not who I want running the country. He's SUCH a crybaby! Rational, innocent people don't behave that way.
There was no obstruction. Anywhere.
Yes the President was frustrated and certainly mad as hell. Every single day there would be somebody in Congress, somebody on television, some newspaper story accusing him of all manner of things. He was being investigated by a special counsel and 17 other people who hated his guts and wanted to bring him down. And he had to watch good people being dragged through the mud and professionally and financially ruined in their efforts to get him.
Witness after witness has reported that he was not asked a single question they didn't know the answer to. The purpose was absolutely not to get information or learn something. The purpose was to catch them in a perjury trap so they could be coerced or extorted into composing something harmful about the President. And they kept it going long LONG after they determined there was no Russian collusion or wrong doing re Russians by any American. They didn't give a tinker's dam about Russia. They wanted to hurt the President and so they kept it going, and kept leaking to the media right up to the 2018 election. That was evil.
But nevertheless he provided the Mueller team with a reported 1.4 million documents and refused him absolutely nothing, did not deny him a single witness either those who volunteered or those who testified due to the more than 500 subpoenas issued. Even Mueller had to admit yesterday that the President and/or his staff did not do anything to prevent or slow down the investigation.
But who in that position would not have expressed their anger and frustration to trusted colleagues? Both about the dishonest and negative press and the innocent people getting hurt? Who would not have wanted the situation changed to something more honest, more fair and would not have expressed that?
My God how much of a pillar of strength, so thick skinned he can ignore the most vicious attacks on himself and other people getting hurt, literally unhuman, is a person supposed to be in order to not be a 'crybaby'?
LOL...No. I'm laughing at you, dope.Hutch, as I read your back-to-back-to-back-to back-to-back posts, 2 images come to mind:
View attachment 270937
1. 'Atlas Holding Up the World'
Mueller's testimony yesterday revealed a man who never should have been named Special Counsel (due to his Conflicts of Interest) of an investigation that never should have been opened due to a lack of evidence of any crime involving the President or his associates that warranted an investigation being opened or a Special Counsel being appointed. His testimony revealed that he was a figurehead who had no clue who the people on 'his' team were (no clue Hillary's own lawyer was on his team), was completely ignorant to some of THE most important parts of the entire investigation (the Dossier, Steele, Glen Simpson, Fusion, GPS...), and that Andrew Weissmann, a man with an even worse prosecutorial record of misconduct and inept behavior, was the 'Puppet Master' running the investigation.
Even Liberal media outlets have declared yesterday to be a disaster and a blow to Democrats. Several have openly declared Mueller's tragic performance was the 'End of Impeachment Hopes'. The Democrats' / snowflakes entire 'reason for living' the last 3 years - their world - is collapsing....but here you are, by yourself, attempting to hold it all up, trying to prevent it from all coming down.
View attachment 270940
2. In Greek Mythology Sisyphus was a king who spent eternity pushing a huge bolder up a steep hill only to have it roll back down when it nears the top.
You, and other snowflakes, remind me of Sisyphus in that you have pushed this 'boulder' - the attempt to keep Trump from winning the WH and then to have him Impeached - up that hill for 3 years now. Every time the 'boulder' nears the top, every time the goal is within reach - every time there is a new 'We've got him now' moment, the 'boulder; rolled / rolls back down to the bottom of the hill.
Yesterday the 'bolder' didn't just roll back down to the bottom of the hill, it completely ran over the Democrats pushing it up the hill.
Mueller's 2 year investigation concluded with his humiliating testimony that did nothing for but instead was a disaster for Democrats and their hopes for Impeachment, as, again, admitted by multiple liberal media. Mueller's investigation is closed. It ended being unable to provide evidence of guilt, not even enough evidence to indict. There will be no indictment. There will be no prosecution, There will be no Impeachment.
Mueller will try to fade into obscurity now. 'His' (Weissmann's) team members have already gone their own way - Weissmann is reportedly the FIRST to have already signed a book deal looking to get rich off of his injustice.
At some point in the near future both the US IG and the US AG will release their reports on their findings on FISA Court Abuses, 'potential' misconduct / mishandling of the Hillary Clinton investigation, and potentially misconduct committed by Mueller's (WEISSMANN & HIS) team.
These will make that 'bolder' even larger and harder to try to push up that hill. Don't be a Sisyphus. Screw the bolder - it's over. Time to walk away from this one.
I feel no weight at all. I'm simply pointing to and laughing at you dopes as I always have.
Rich pickins in this one.
Yes, we know. You're the monkey laughing at itself in the mirror.
Yes, we know, maniacal laughter as you flagellate yourself and bounce off of the padded walls is pretty much all you are capable of fakey mcfakerson. As has been pointed out to you ad nauseum, the inclusion of "MAY", in a LEGAL document, means the entire document is shit. That's not my opinion, or the opinion of any other person. That is the RULING by every legal entity in the USA.
should never have happened. having said that, since it did, clinton screwed himself, however, it didn't get him removed from office did it. so the left is learning absolutely nothing.I watched Bill Clinton go through more than this over a blow job! He was investigated for four years! He got impeached for lying over consensual adult sex and I don't even think there was penetrations!!!You could be right about the investigation being partisan. All the facts are not out yet. I am willing to let the whole truth come out. Every bit of it.Foxfyre, the investigation into the "matter" (the Obama/Crooked Hillary plot to overthrow our democracy) is just beginning. Get used to it. Mueller should be in prison after the "matter" is settled.
I don't know whether he should be in prison just yet, but I do believe the Mueller investigation was viciously partisan and was conducted with a single goal in mind: destroy President Trump. And in his and his team's eagerness to do that, many good people had their names dragged through the mud and they and their families were seriously harmed personally, professionally, and economically. That was wrong. That was evil.
Mueller is either so senile he doesn't have a clue or he bald faced lied when he said his team didn't leak to the press. There was leak after leak after leak all suggesting they were finding terrible things about the President and/or his closest people and thus damaging him as much as possible leading up to the 2018 election. THAT is election meddling that matters. The Russians or any other foreign powers were teensy blips on the radar compared with that.
I've been around the block enough times to become thoroughly jaded when it comes to believe anybody protected by the left will be accountable for any kind of malfeasance. So I don't hold out strong hope that the I.G. and/or the Durham Investigation will come through for us and expose all the total corruption that existed in all that. But I do hope.
The issue I have is the way Trump has reacted to the investigation. The part that's all described in the Obstruction Diaries.
Like a 12-year old boy who can't get a girlfriend because he's got too many pimples.
Good God that is not who I want running the country. He's SUCH a crybaby! Rational, innocent people don't behave that way.
There was no obstruction. Anywhere.
Yes the President was frustrated and certainly mad as hell. Every single day there would be somebody in Congress, somebody on television, some newspaper story accusing him of all manner of things. He was being investigated by a special counsel and 17 other people who hated his guts and wanted to bring him down. And he had to watch good people being dragged through the mud and professionally and financially ruined in their efforts to get him.
Witness after witness has reported that he was not asked a single question they didn't know the answer to. The purpose was absolutely not to get information or learn something. The purpose was to catch them in a perjury trap so they could be coerced or extorted into composing something harmful about the President. And they kept it going long LONG after they determined there was no Russian collusion or wrong doing re Russians by any American. They didn't give a tinker's dam about Russia. They wanted to hurt the President and so they kept it going, and kept leaking to the media right up to the 2018 election. That was evil.
But nevertheless he provided the Mueller team with a reported 1.4 million documents and refused him absolutely nothing, did not deny him a single witness either those who volunteered or those who testified due to the more than 500 subpoenas issued. Even Mueller had to admit yesterday that the President and/or his staff did not do anything to prevent or slow down the investigation.
But who in that position would not have expressed their anger and frustration to trusted colleagues? Both about the dishonest and negative press and the innocent people getting hurt? Who would not have wanted the situation changed to something more honest, more fair and would not have expressed that?
My God how much of a pillar of strength, so thick skinned he can ignore the most vicious attacks on himself and other people getting hurt, literally unhuman, is a person supposed to be in order to not be a 'crybaby'?
I guess he's made of far stronger stuff than your pre-teen boy-man. And I am not even a fan of either Clinton.
I can't help it if Trump is a delicate precious flower who needs continual adoration and never gets it because he's a jackass jerk. I guess his mommy just didn't love him enough.
yes he did clarify it, from your link...Mueller clarifies comments on whether he could indict TrumpI watched the hearing, did you or SAYIT?nope, you should listen to the afternoon rebuttal.Right, he did not make a determination as to whether Trump committed a crime or did not commit a crime, because of the OLC rule.Except that isn't what Mueller said when he corrected his earlier testimony. In fact, he said the opposite of what you claim:Of course I know that Mueller didn't bring charges, dope. Everyone knows that. The entire world knows that.
Why? How?
Because Mueller told us he couldn't bring charges, dope.
“I want to add one correction to my testimony this morning," Mueller said. "I want to go back to one thing that was said this morning by Mr. Lieu, who said and I quote, ‘You didn’t charge the President because of the OLC opinion. That is not the correct way to say it. As we say in the report and as I said at the opening, we did not reach a determination as to whether the President committed a crime.”
Mueller issues clarification, takes back bombshell statement about indicting Trump
he replaced: he didn't ''charge'' the president with a crime because of the OLC memo
with he didn't ''determine'' or ''make a determination'' whether the president committed a crime or NOT, due to the OLC memo.
BTW, I can't help your ignorance of the law.
Mueller clarifies comments on whether he could indict Trump
I know what he was correcting and I know thru ALL of his other comments in the hearing on it, what he was talking about and what he needed to correct.
He did not want the public to think he did not CHARGE the president with a crime due to the OLC memo, because he never made the determination, one way or the other, due to the OLC memo guidelines. He also said and confirmed this was not an exoneration either.... he said they did not make any determination....
period... end of story.
BTW,it's the facts, I don't care what you posted. you're lost.Mueller clarifies comments on whether he could indict TrumpWTF?well he wasn't charged, nor was evidence cited. so he is innocent, which therefore exonerates him from the accusation. no crime committed. He was the focus of the investigation, therefore he knows he isn't being charged. as the subject he can say he was exonerated.
No crime, no crime. say it, no crime.
Evidence was cited. The entirety of Vol 2 of the report is evidence, dope.
Mueller says otherwise.
That doesn't refute what I posted.
Bye, tard.
What do you think?
On a side, for the whimpering ignorant. Foreign countries have "interfered" with our elections since long before you were born. The USA does the same thing.
which means he didn't say he committed a crime correct?yes he did clarify it, from your link...Mueller clarifies comments on whether he could indict TrumpI watched the hearing, did you or SAYIT?nope, you should listen to the afternoon rebuttal.Right, he did not make a determination as to whether Trump committed a crime or did not commit a crime, because of the OLC rule.Except that isn't what Mueller said when he corrected his earlier testimony. In fact, he said the opposite of what you claim:
“I want to add one correction to my testimony this morning," Mueller said. "I want to go back to one thing that was said this morning by Mr. Lieu, who said and I quote, ‘You didn’t charge the President because of the OLC opinion. That is not the correct way to say it. As we say in the report and as I said at the opening, we did not reach a determination as to whether the President committed a crime.”
Mueller issues clarification, takes back bombshell statement about indicting Trump
he replaced: he didn't ''charge'' the president with a crime because of the OLC memo
with he didn't ''determine'' or ''make a determination'' whether the president committed a crime or NOT, due to the OLC memo.
BTW, I can't help your ignorance of the law.
Mueller clarifies comments on whether he could indict Trump
I know what he was correcting and I know thru ALL of his other comments in the hearing on it, what he was talking about and what he needed to correct.
He did not want the public to think he did not CHARGE the president with a crime due to the OLC memo, because he never made the determination, one way or the other, due to the OLC memo guidelines. He also said and confirmed this was not an exoneration either.... he said they did not make any determination....
period... end of story.
"That's not the correct way to say it," Mueller said. "We did not reach a determination as to whether the president committed a crime."
That statement was more in line with his report, and with his earlier opening statement to the Judiciary Committee, where he said, "Based on Justice Department policy and principles of fairness, we decided we would not make a determination as to whether the President committed a crime. That was our decision then and it remains our decision today."
Here's my take away...I watched the hearing, did you or SAYIT?nope, you should listen to the afternoon rebuttal.Right, he did not make a determination as to whether Trump committed a crime or did not commit a crime, because of the OLC rule.Except that isn't what Mueller said when he corrected his earlier testimony. In fact, he said the opposite of what you claim:You can't answer the SIMPLE question then, which means you KNOW that Mueller NEVER stated a single charge of a crime in the 448 page report. You continue your torrential flow of bullshit because you are a partisan jackass.
You have NOTHING to show for your bullcrap, and you do this video thing from a man who stated over and over that his testimony is BASED on his 448 page report. The Exoneration statement is bogus crap for a reason that amazingly eludes a lot of Dumbocrats. It made you go sniffing for a lot of crap piles left by partisan hacks,, while ignoring that there was NEVER crime discovered and posted anywhere in the 448 page report.
You are one stupid little boy who can't understand that being exonerated means you have to be accused/Indicted/charged with something legally binding first. Mueller was charged to FIND any conspiracy crimes against Trump, and report it to the AG, but he NEVER posted a single charge in his 448 page report. YOU never showed where in the 448 page report of a charge, which means you have NOTHING to maintain your mentally ill beliefs that Trump is guilty of a conspiracy.
Here from Merriam-Webster:
Exonerate
1 : to relieve of a responsibility, obligation, or hardship
2 : to clear from accusation or blame
Since he was NEVER charged with anything by Mueller in his 448 page report, there is nothing to exonerate, since Trump was never charged with anything beyond partisan hate claims.
You have NOTHING real to run on stupid little boy!
You can't answer the SIMPLE question then, which means you KNOW that Mueller NEVER stated a single charge of a crime in the 448 page report. You continue your torrential flow of bullshit because you are a partisan jackass.
Of course I know that Mueller didn't bring charges, dope. Everyone knows that. The entire world knows that.
Why? How?
Because Mueller told us he couldn't bring charges, dope.
“I want to add one correction to my testimony this morning," Mueller said. "I want to go back to one thing that was said this morning by Mr. Lieu, who said and I quote, ‘You didn’t charge the President because of the OLC opinion. That is not the correct way to say it. As we say in the report and as I said at the opening, we did not reach a determination as to whether the President committed a crime.”
Mueller issues clarification, takes back bombshell statement about indicting Trump
he replaced: he didn't ''charge'' the president with a crime because of the OLC memo
with he didn't ''determine'' or ''make a determination'' whether the president committed a crime or NOT, due to the OLC memo.
BTW, I can't help your ignorance of the law.
Mueller clarifies comments on whether he could indict Trump
I know what he was correcting and I know thru ALL of his other comments in the hearing on it, what he was talking about and what he needed to correct.
He did not want the public to think he did not CHARGE the president with a crime due to the OLC memo, because he never made the determination, one way or the other, due to the OLC memo guidelines. He also said and confirmed this was not an exoneration either.... he said they did not make any determination....
period... end of story.
Asking your attorney to falsify documents is not corrupt intent in your mind?Because the underlying investigation turned up ZERO CRIMINAL ACTIVITY, prosecutors would have serious difficulty proving "corrupt intent" on any of the alleged "obstructive acts".
It is not enough to only prove that Trump committed "obstructive acts" in prosecuting him for criminal obstruction of justice.
I think that proving "obstructive acts" was all the hopeful shit-bags on the left believed they needed to prove.
WRONG
It's not enough. You've got to prove that said obstructive acts were done with, not just any intent, but CORRUPT intent.
If the person being prosecuted for obstruction is also in the unique position of being the top executive of the branch of government doing the investigating, that person has a responsibility to shut down frivolous investigations into non-crimes. One can hardly be acting with corrupt intent if he is carrying out the duties of his position.
This investigation was cocksucking frivolous from the beginning. We told you it was. We were right. You were idiots and didn't listen.
While it is possible to obstruct justice without the investigators ever finding criminal activity, in this situation, where the target of the investigation is also the person responsible for making decisions to end such investigations when appropriate, the lack of underlying criminal conduct would require the very target of the investigation to do that very thing. Because said target is charged with the legal duty of his office to end a bullshit investigation (wastefully investigating a non-crime), his actions to discharge his duty of office in terminating such an investigation CANNOT be considered "corrupt intent" by ANY MEASURE!!!
So, you can scream, bitch, cry, moan, yell at the sky, and shit you pants all day long.
Corrupt Intent is NEGATED by the lack of underlying criminal conduct, and the unique position of the investigation target.
Show me where I am wrong.
.
he can ask his lawyer to do anything he likes. that's why we have attorney client privilege. the fact they waved that is against our system of justice. I throw that all out.Asking your attorney to falsify documents is not corrupt intent in your mind?Because the underlying investigation turned up ZERO CRIMINAL ACTIVITY, prosecutors would have serious difficulty proving "corrupt intent" on any of the alleged "obstructive acts".
It is not enough to only prove that Trump committed "obstructive acts" in prosecuting him for criminal obstruction of justice.
I think that proving "obstructive acts" was all the hopeful shit-bags on the left believed they needed to prove.
WRONG
It's not enough. You've got to prove that said obstructive acts were done with, not just any intent, but CORRUPT intent.
If the person being prosecuted for obstruction is also in the unique position of being the top executive of the branch of government doing the investigating, that person has a responsibility to shut down frivolous investigations into non-crimes. One can hardly be acting with corrupt intent if he is carrying out the duties of his position.
This investigation was cocksucking frivolous from the beginning. We told you it was. We were right. You were idiots and didn't listen.
While it is possible to obstruct justice without the investigators ever finding criminal activity, in this situation, where the target of the investigation is also the person responsible for making decisions to end such investigations when appropriate, the lack of underlying criminal conduct would require the very target of the investigation to do that very thing. Because said target is charged with the legal duty of his office to end a bullshit investigation (wastefully investigating a non-crime), his actions to discharge his duty of office in terminating such an investigation CANNOT be considered "corrupt intent" by ANY MEASURE!!!
So, you can scream, bitch, cry, moan, yell at the sky, and shit you pants all day long.
Corrupt Intent is NEGATED by the lack of underlying criminal conduct, and the unique position of the investigation target.
Show me where I am wrong.
.
Dennis Katsyv, the owner of Prevezon, was personally represented by Veselnitskaya. The law firm BakerHostetler represented the company. Why did they change their minds? Why did they let her in the first two times? That is the same reason they let her in the third time.She may not have been testifying, but she was at the court hearing on June 9, so obviously she was still active in the case. The State Department initially agreed with the US Attorney's office and denied her visa, but it was appealed and she was allowed back in for the court case specifically because our law allows for representation by an attorney. This has been stated many times in articles about this.FYI-she was here as the lawyer for some Russian Corporation being tried for money laundering or fraud.... the Southern District might have been the prosecutors that charged the Russian firm if memory serves....Veselnitskaya didn't have what she promised. The questions that should be asked are how did she get into the country for that meeting?
When Don jr got the email for the Russian meeting set up with Veselnitskaya from his promoter friend, junior tried to move up the meeting earlier, and that promoter guy (can't remember his name) answered back to him via this email chain, that she could not meet earlier, she had to be in a Court hearing for her clients....
FYI...in order for Veselnitskaya to enter the US...she had to obtain a special visa from the State Department...a visa which only 3 months earlier had been denied! This from an article by Reuters. How did Russian lawyer Veselnitskaya get into U.S. for Trump Tower meeting? - Reuters
"The back-and-forth over what happened at the infamous 2016 Trump Tower meeting leads to a question that arose last week in a different case involving Veselnitskaya: How did she get into the U.S. for the meeting with Donald Trump Jr.?
On the same day as the Trump Tower meeting, Veselnitskaya attended oral arguments at the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in the U.S. government’s forfeiture case against the Cyprus-based real estate holding company Prevezon, which prosecutors accused of laundering some of the proceeds of a $230 million Russian tax fraud scheme. Prevezon has U.S. lawyers in the forfeiture action but Veselnitskaya represents Prevezon owner Denis Katsyv, a Russian businessman.
Veselnitskaya, however, wasn’t admitted into the U.S. in June 2016 because of her role in the Prevezon case. In fact, then U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara of Manhattan specifically refused Veselnitskaya’s request that the Justice Department authorize her trip via a mechanism known as immigration parole, which allows the attorney general to temporarily suspend immigration requirements on a case-by-case basis.
Bharara’s office has recommended immigration paroles for Veselnitskaya on three occasions, when her client, Katsyv, was being deposed in the U.S. in the Prevezon case. But in March 2016, Bharara’s office said no. In a letter to Prevezon’s U.S. lawyers, prosecutors said such paroles aren’t appropriate for foreign lawyers asking to help U.S. counsel prepare for appellate arguments or to attend appellate proceedings. “Since neither Katsyv nor Veselnitskaya are required to appear as witnesses in person at this stage of proceedings, we do not believe that immigration parole is appropriate,” the since-fired U.S. attorney wrote.
Nevertheless, three months later, Veselnitskaya not only attended oral arguments in the Prevezon case but also traveled uptown to meet with Trump campaign officials.
Veselnitskaya obtained a visa from the State Department to enter the country in June 2016, according to a government filing last week. The filing, which came in response to a new request by Veselnitskaya to be allowed into the U.S. for a Nov. 9 hearing in the now-settled Prevezon case, cited a Fox News report from last July.
The Manhattan U.S. attorney’s office did not disclose in the filing whether it independently confirmed that the State Department issued a visa to Veselnitskaya to allow to her attend the 2nd Circuit argument in June 2016. The prosecutor leading the Prevezon case, assistant U.S. attorney Paul Monteleoni, referred me to a spokesman, who said the office could not supply additional public information on Veselnitskaya’s reported visa.
A State Department spokesman declined to comment in response to my email request for comment on whether it approved a visa for Veselnitskaya in June 2016. John Moscow of Baker Hostetler, who was Prevezon’s lawyer when the Justice Department denied Veselnitskaya’s 2016 request for immigration parole, was subsequently disqualified from the case by the 2nd Circuit because of a client conflict. He did not respond to my phone message asking about Veselnitskaya’s visa."
So you tell me, Care...why was Veselnitskaya denied a visa 3 months earlier because she wasn't going to be testifying as a witness in the Prevezon case but WAS issued a visa "parole" by the Obama State Department when she STILL wasn't testifying as a witness 3 months later but WAS going to meet with Donald Trump Jr.?
If you want to imagine that the Obama State Department let her in specifically to meet with the Trump campaign and set him up for collusion, you're welcome to, but that is happy horseshit.
So tell me what had changed between the 3 months prior when Veselnitskaya's request for an "immigration parole" was denied because she was not testifying nor was her client and when her visa was approved? Why was it denied then but approved 3 months later even though neither Veselnitskaya or Katsyv were testifying? Our laws DO allow for representation by an attorney. Katsyv WAS represented by attorneys...US attorneys! So what had changed in that 3 months that would change the State Department's mind, Old Lady? The only thing that stands out is that Veselnitskaya was meeting with Donald Trump Jr...a meeting that appears to have been coordinated by Glenn Simpson...a meeting that was immediately covered by The New York Times and trumpeted as "Russian Collusion"!
Fusion GPS didn't 'set up' this meeting to bring down Trump. If they had, HRC's campaign would have broken the information BEFORE the election. Why do you believe conspiracy nuts like this when if there were dark motives, why in hell didn't any of them use it? The Steele Dossier wasn't used before the election. Even the "lying" media wouldn't print it until that joker from BuzzFeed did. Neither was news of this meeting, which did not come out until after the President was safely elected and ensconced.
This is not how it works.
Glenn Simpson and Attorney V sat at opposite ends of a long dinner table, speaking different languages, at a large dinner party for clients of Baker Hostetler, the firm representing Prevezon. They were not involved in secret discussions for how to bring down Donald Trump!!!
I never even heard of these allegations until yesterday, and I was very interested and read a lot about it when the Trump Tower meeting came out. No one is paying this any mind, and there is a reason for it. It is a nothing burger.
Just quit with the foolishness. You are trying to muddy the water, but it is not going to work.
Denis Katsyv - Wikipedia
Asking your attorney to falsify documents is not corrupt intent in your mind?Because the underlying investigation turned up ZERO CRIMINAL ACTIVITY, prosecutors would have serious difficulty proving "corrupt intent" on any of the alleged "obstructive acts".
It is not enough to only prove that Trump committed "obstructive acts" in prosecuting him for criminal obstruction of justice.
I think that proving "obstructive acts" was all the hopeful shit-bags on the left believed they needed to prove.
WRONG
It's not enough. You've got to prove that said obstructive acts were done with, not just any intent, but CORRUPT intent.
If the person being prosecuted for obstruction is also in the unique position of being the top executive of the branch of government doing the investigating, that person has a responsibility to shut down frivolous investigations into non-crimes. One can hardly be acting with corrupt intent if he is carrying out the duties of his position.
This investigation was cocksucking frivolous from the beginning. We told you it was. We were right. You were idiots and didn't listen.
While it is possible to obstruct justice without the investigators ever finding criminal activity, in this situation, where the target of the investigation is also the person responsible for making decisions to end such investigations when appropriate, the lack of underlying criminal conduct would require the very target of the investigation to do that very thing. Because said target is charged with the legal duty of his office to end a bullshit investigation (wastefully investigating a non-crime), his actions to discharge his duty of office in terminating such an investigation CANNOT be considered "corrupt intent" by ANY MEASURE!!!
So, you can scream, bitch, cry, moan, yell at the sky, and shit you pants all day long.
Corrupt Intent is NEGATED by the lack of underlying criminal conduct, and the unique position of the investigation target.
Show me where I am wrong.
.
you certainly like to translate your illiteracyAsking your attorney to falsify documents is not corrupt intent in your mind?Because the underlying investigation turned up ZERO CRIMINAL ACTIVITY, prosecutors would have serious difficulty proving "corrupt intent" on any of the alleged "obstructive acts".
It is not enough to only prove that Trump committed "obstructive acts" in prosecuting him for criminal obstruction of justice.
I think that proving "obstructive acts" was all the hopeful shit-bags on the left believed they needed to prove.
WRONG
It's not enough. You've got to prove that said obstructive acts were done with, not just any intent, but CORRUPT intent.
If the person being prosecuted for obstruction is also in the unique position of being the top executive of the branch of government doing the investigating, that person has a responsibility to shut down frivolous investigations into non-crimes. One can hardly be acting with corrupt intent if he is carrying out the duties of his position.
This investigation was cocksucking frivolous from the beginning. We told you it was. We were right. You were idiots and didn't listen.
While it is possible to obstruct justice without the investigators ever finding criminal activity, in this situation, where the target of the investigation is also the person responsible for making decisions to end such investigations when appropriate, the lack of underlying criminal conduct would require the very target of the investigation to do that very thing. Because said target is charged with the legal duty of his office to end a bullshit investigation (wastefully investigating a non-crime), his actions to discharge his duty of office in terminating such an investigation CANNOT be considered "corrupt intent" by ANY MEASURE!!!
So, you can scream, bitch, cry, moan, yell at the sky, and shit you pants all day long.
Corrupt Intent is NEGATED by the lack of underlying criminal conduct, and the unique position of the investigation target.
Show me where I am wrong.
.
what mind ? as a drone in the collective, it thinks the same way its master thinks, and its master is Trump.
any questions ?
I think Mueller said there was not sufficient evidence of collusion with Russia to prove a crime. I believe he mentioned that Trump seemed to know what WikiLeaks would do before Wikileaks did it.Here's my take away...I watched the hearing, did you or SAYIT?nope, you should listen to the afternoon rebuttal.Right, he did not make a determination as to whether Trump committed a crime or did not commit a crime, because of the OLC rule.Except that isn't what Mueller said when he corrected his earlier testimony. In fact, he said the opposite of what you claim:Of course I know that Mueller didn't bring charges, dope. Everyone knows that. The entire world knows that.
Why? How?
Because Mueller told us he couldn't bring charges, dope.
“I want to add one correction to my testimony this morning," Mueller said. "I want to go back to one thing that was said this morning by Mr. Lieu, who said and I quote, ‘You didn’t charge the President because of the OLC opinion. That is not the correct way to say it. As we say in the report and as I said at the opening, we did not reach a determination as to whether the President committed a crime.”
Mueller issues clarification, takes back bombshell statement about indicting Trump
he replaced: he didn't ''charge'' the president with a crime because of the OLC memo
with he didn't ''determine'' or ''make a determination'' whether the president committed a crime or NOT, due to the OLC memo.
BTW, I can't help your ignorance of the law.
Mueller clarifies comments on whether he could indict Trump
I know what he was correcting and I know thru ALL of his other comments in the hearing on it, what he was talking about and what he needed to correct.
He did not want the public to think he did not CHARGE the president with a crime due to the OLC memo, because he never made the determination, one way or the other, due to the OLC memo guidelines. He also said and confirmed this was not an exoneration either.... he said they did not make any determination....
period... end of story.
Mueller was very clear, he said he would not seek indictment on trump because a sitting president can't be indicted according to the OLC's opinion on that matter. Had there been no evidence to support a criminal charge on obstruction, Mueller would have cleared him of any wrong doing, just as he did regarding conspiring with Russia's election hacking. But he didn't clear trump of obstruction because hd found evidence of obstruction.
In other words, he could clear the president when the evidence supports clearing him since that would not result in an indictment of a sitting president. That's exactly what Mueller did in volume one of his report.
But if the evidence shows a crime may have been committed, then Mueller could neither clear trump, nor could he seek indictment because trump is a sitting president and sitting presidents can't be indicted. That's exactly what Mueller did in volume two of his report.
Clearing trump of conspiracy proves trump did not collude with Russia. Not clearing trump of obstruction, and including possible evidence of obstruction in his report, proves trump may have obstructed justice.
It's now up to the Congress to decide the next step.
not really hard though, Trump made it clear when he asked McGahn to lie about Trump asking him to fire Mueller and to create a false memo about it... when he tried to have Don McGann cover up his initial firing of Mueller request.... that was... consciousness of guilt, corrupt intent.prosecutors would have serious difficulty proving "corrupt intent" on any of the alleged "obstructive acts".
so?I think Mueller said there was not sufficient evidence of collusion with Russia to prove a crime. I believe he mentioned that Trump seemed to know what WikiLeaks would do before Wikileaks did it.Here's my take away...I watched the hearing, did you or SAYIT?nope, you should listen to the afternoon rebuttal.Right, he did not make a determination as to whether Trump committed a crime or did not commit a crime, because of the OLC rule.Except that isn't what Mueller said when he corrected his earlier testimony. In fact, he said the opposite of what you claim:
“I want to add one correction to my testimony this morning," Mueller said. "I want to go back to one thing that was said this morning by Mr. Lieu, who said and I quote, ‘You didn’t charge the President because of the OLC opinion. That is not the correct way to say it. As we say in the report and as I said at the opening, we did not reach a determination as to whether the President committed a crime.”
Mueller issues clarification, takes back bombshell statement about indicting Trump
he replaced: he didn't ''charge'' the president with a crime because of the OLC memo
with he didn't ''determine'' or ''make a determination'' whether the president committed a crime or NOT, due to the OLC memo.
BTW, I can't help your ignorance of the law.
Mueller clarifies comments on whether he could indict Trump
I know what he was correcting and I know thru ALL of his other comments in the hearing on it, what he was talking about and what he needed to correct.
He did not want the public to think he did not CHARGE the president with a crime due to the OLC memo, because he never made the determination, one way or the other, due to the OLC memo guidelines. He also said and confirmed this was not an exoneration either.... he said they did not make any determination....
period... end of story.
Mueller was very clear, he said he would not seek indictment on trump because a sitting president can't be indicted according to the OLC's opinion on that matter. Had there been no evidence to support a criminal charge on obstruction, Mueller would have cleared him of any wrong doing, just as he did regarding conspiring with Russia's election hacking. But he didn't clear trump of obstruction because hd found evidence of obstruction.
In other words, he could clear the president when the evidence supports clearing him since that would not result in an indictment of a sitting president. That's exactly what Mueller did in volume one of his report.
But if the evidence shows a crime may have been committed, then Mueller could neither clear trump, nor could he seek indictment because trump is a sitting president and sitting presidents can't be indicted. That's exactly what Mueller did in volume two of his report.
Clearing trump of conspiracy proves trump did not collude with Russia. Not clearing trump of obstruction, and including possible evidence of obstruction in his report, proves trump may have obstructed justice.
It's now up to the Congress to decide the next step.
he can ask his lawyer to do anything he likes. that's why we have attorney client privilege. the fact they waved that is against our system of justice. I throw that all out.Asking your attorney to falsify documents is not corrupt intent in your mind?Because the underlying investigation turned up ZERO CRIMINAL ACTIVITY, prosecutors would have serious difficulty proving "corrupt intent" on any of the alleged "obstructive acts".
It is not enough to only prove that Trump committed "obstructive acts" in prosecuting him for criminal obstruction of justice.
I think that proving "obstructive acts" was all the hopeful shit-bags on the left believed they needed to prove.
WRONG
It's not enough. You've got to prove that said obstructive acts were done with, not just any intent, but CORRUPT intent.
If the person being prosecuted for obstruction is also in the unique position of being the top executive of the branch of government doing the investigating, that person has a responsibility to shut down frivolous investigations into non-crimes. One can hardly be acting with corrupt intent if he is carrying out the duties of his position.
This investigation was cocksucking frivolous from the beginning. We told you it was. We were right. You were idiots and didn't listen.
While it is possible to obstruct justice without the investigators ever finding criminal activity, in this situation, where the target of the investigation is also the person responsible for making decisions to end such investigations when appropriate, the lack of underlying criminal conduct would require the very target of the investigation to do that very thing. Because said target is charged with the legal duty of his office to end a bullshit investigation (wastefully investigating a non-crime), his actions to discharge his duty of office in terminating such an investigation CANNOT be considered "corrupt intent" by ANY MEASURE!!!
So, you can scream, bitch, cry, moan, yell at the sky, and shit you pants all day long.
Corrupt Intent is NEGATED by the lack of underlying criminal conduct, and the unique position of the investigation target.
Show me where I am wrong.
.
