Mueller report to be released Thursday

[basquebromance]

"Strangest player in all this may be Rod Rosenstein, who: Wrote the misleading memo backing Comey’s firing Responded to outrage over *that very firing* by appointing Mueller Clashed w Trump/GOP while overseeing Mueller Only to acquiesce to Barr’s misleading letter & presser."

 

[basquebromance]

is there a stronger human emotion than shame? Trump and his supporters should be ashamed of themselves!

 

[WEATHER53]

Reads like Mueller avoided making conclusions if it benefited Trump.

 

[basquebromance]

why arent 300 million americans rioting in the streets and demanding that Secretery Clinton become president and that Trump is locked up?

 

[basquebromance]

Reads like Mueller avoided making conclusions if it benefited Trump.

it reads like a yarn. its a yarn!

 

[BluesLegend]

why arent 300 million americans rioting in the streets and demanding that Secretery Clinton become president and that Trump is locked up?

Because she's a bitch and nobody likes her.

 

[basquebromance]

why arent 300 million americans rioting in the streets and demanding that Secretery Clinton become president and that Trump is locked up?

Because she's a bitch and nobody likes her.

more people voted for President Clinton than voted for trump. what does that say about trump?

 

[BluesLegend]

why arent 300 million americans rioting in the streets and demanding that Secretery Clinton become president and that Trump is locked up?

Because she's a bitch and nobody likes her.

more people voted for President Clinton than voted for trump. what does that say about trump?

Only in California. 1 million more people voted for Trump in the other 49 states. Nobody likes California either, FU California.

 

[Cecilie1200]

It is a crime to "endeavor" to obstruct justice. Trump "endeavored" several times.

THE REPORT: HE TRIED AND TRIED!

Perhaps YOU should have been the Special Counsel, since you know so much more about what constitutes a crime than he does. After all, HE'S just a licensed lawyer with a JD and decades of prosecution experience under his belt, while YOU are a deranged, semi-literate hack on the Internet who "knows" that Donald Trump is guilty of something, ANYTHING, just because you don't like him and THAT'S a crime in your eyes.

Or maybe when legal experts tell you there's insufficient evidence that a crime was committed, you should stop making a fool out of yourself insisting that you know better.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Barr should be impeached. This isn't over...

Your insane tantrum? No, I doubt that'll ever be over without some industrial-strength psych meds.

 

[Cecilie1200]

We were provided another example today of the screwed up Trump administration. According to The Hill, President Trump announced Wednesday that Barr would be holding a press conference and that he also might hold his own conference. Strange, this came from the President, not the Department of Justice.

It gets even stranger. Attorney General William Barr will hold a press conference Thursday morning on the release of special counsel Robert Mueller’s report before or soon after the Mueller Report is released. He will take questions, the DOJ got around to saying.

It’s not clear if the press conference will come before or after the release of the final 400-page report and its color-coded redactions.

How in the world can reporters ask intelligent questions about the Mueller Report without seeing its contents? Now that his strange. It is also pure Trump.

There are also questions about Barr's objectiveness based upon his findings late last month. Barr and his deputy, Rod Rosenstein, determined that Trump did not illegally obstruct justice and said the special counsel found no conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia’s 2016 election interference. Also, Barr told lawmakers that FBI officials were “spying” on the Trump campaign. Now that is strange. Again, pure Trump.

On another front, members of Congress will be able to see the Mueller Report "without certain redactions" after its public release, the Justice Department announced Wednesday. The disclosure of a version of the report without "certain redactions" came in a filing late Wednesday in the Roger Stone prosecution.

Again, the Trump administration is being coy with the English language. Unveil two sentences from the redacted version and you get the report "without certain redactions." What exactly does "without certain redactions" mean other than allowing as many redactions as Barr desires?

Barr refuses to give our representatives in Congress an unredacted version of the Mueller Report. There is very little doubt that Barr is trying to protect Trump from the report. He wants to put his spin on the report before Americans see it.

It won't work.

In his news conference today, during his opening statement, Barr confirmed that the White House was given a redacted version of the Mueller report — a luxury not afforded to Congress, the public, or the reporters in the room who were granted the privilege of asking questions about a report they had not seen.

Barr also explained away questions about possible obstruction of justice by saying Trump “faced an unprecedented situation. As he entered office and sought to perform his responsibilities, prosecutors were scrutinizing his conduct ... yet, as he said from the beginning, there was no collusion.”

Paula Reid of CBS asked Barr to respond to critics who have interpreted his conduct as being aimed at protecting Trump, not dealing in good faith with the American people.

“A Republican-appointed judge on Tuesday said you have, quote, created an environment that has caused a significant part of the American public to be concerned about these redactions. You cleared the president on obstruction,” Reid began. “The president is fundraising off your comments about ‘spying,’ and here you have remarks that are quite generous to the president, including acknowledging his feelings and emotions. What do you say to people on both sides of the aisle who are concerned you’re trying to protect the president?”

Barr didn’t respond to Reid’s question. Instead he questioned the basis of the question without being specific.

The final question got to the heart of the problem.

“Do you think it creates an appearance of impropriety for you to come out and sort of, what appears to be spinning the report before the public gets a chance to read it?” Ryan Reilly of HuffPost asked, referring to the decision the Trump administration made to hold a news conference about the Mueller report before it was even released to Congress for review.

“No,” Barr replied curtly. He then walked away, ending the news conference.

Watch: Barr walks away after he’s asked the most important question about the Mueller report

Barr is doing an excellent imitation of one of Trump's lawyers. He explained away questions about possible obstruction of justice by saying Trump “faced an unprecedented situation. As he entered office and sought to perform his responsibilities, prosecutors were scrutinizing his conduct ... yet, as he said from the beginning, there was no collusion.”

Barr is saying Trump is innocent of obstruction and conspiring with the Russian government.

Barr made the decision that he will decide what the Congress and the public sees.

This is like the defense deciding what evidence the prosecutor can present.

This will come back to haunt both Trump and Barr. The tactic is so transparent as to being beyond belief, and it is so Trumpian in its nature. Everyone can recognize the "bull in the china closet" strategy.

No doubt many of Trump's supporters are embarrassed as they ask themselves ...

Did Trump have to be so damn obvious? Geez!

The DOJ has a rule forbidding the indictment of a sitting President.

And?

Mueller presented his evidence in prosecutorial way, meaning was there enough evidence to convict beyond a reasonable doubt. Mueller did not even try. He left it up to Congress.

All that means is that he's a trained attorney and prosecutor, and that's how they present everything, drooler. If there was enough evidence to prosecute, let alone convict, he'd not only have said so, he'd have brought an indictment, as he in fact did with other people. When a prosecutor says, "There's insufficient evidence", that's what he means, even if he "does it in a prosecutorial way".

Concerning Trump's indictment, when he does says "No collusion and no obstruction," that was determined two years ago.

Yeah, but deranged idiots like you insisted you had to have an investigation anyway, so here we are. Would have been cheaper to just buy you some Thorazine and a straightjacket and call it a day.

The report does not find that Trump or his campaign aides had committed any crimes in their contacts with Russians, but it lays bare how Trump was elected with the help of a foreign power.

And since he had nothing to do with anything they did, that's irrelevant. My mother- and father-in-law got married because of the actions of a foreign power, but I don't think that means you can blame the Vietnam War on them. The standard of guilt is NOT "someone over there performed actions which affected your life".

Trump never does his dirty work. He orders others to do it for him. Picture Trump meeting with four Russian operatives in Trump Tower. No, he sent his son, son-in-law, and campaign manager.

What part of "no evidence of collusion by Trump or his staff" did you need explained to you?

Although, he may not be personally involved, Trump is responsible for what his campaign did. For example, no doubt he knew that key members of his campaign (and family) were meeting four Russian operatives in his home.

Again, what part of "or his campaign staff" has too many syllables for you?

Efforts by Trump to obstruct justice failed because others refused to "carry out orders."

You can't "obstruct justice" if there was no underlying crime to obstruct justice about.

Mueller wrote that no person — not even the President of the United States — is above the law, and that the US Constitution doesn’t “categorically and permanently immunize a President for obstructing justice.”

No, but lack of evidence does that pretty well.

“The conclusion that Congress may apply obstruction laws to the President’s corrupt exercise of the powers of office accords with our constitutional system of checks and balances and the principle that no person is above the law.”

The Mueller Report.

Big difference between "It's possible to prosecute the President" and "we have enough evidence to do so".

Mueller intended for Congress to decide on the issues of conspiracy and obstruction because his hands were tied by the heretofore mentioned DOJ rule.

Mueller doesn't get to "intend" anything. He can indict and prosecute if he has the evidence, or he can turn over insufficient evidence to the AG, as he did. He has no power to "intend" anyone else to do anything, nor did he attempt to. He stated legal fact, which is that Congress has Constitutional powers - known as "impeachment" - which they can decide to try to use or not.

Immediately after learning that a special counsel had been appointed to lead the Russia investigation, the report said, Trump became distraught and slumped in his chair.

“Oh, my God. This is terrible,” he said. “This is the end of my presidency. I’m fucked.”

Immediately upon carefully misquoting out of context, your entire argument collapsed from lunatic rantings into a giant pile of reeking partisan horseshit. Thank you for the long, empty post for no other purpose than to tell us that you're an amoeba-brained asshat.

Oh, and this just in: Donald Trump is still President, and you still lost.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Why would it be unethical?

Because Barr should maintain a separation. He should not allow trump to dictate or allow the appearance that trump is dictating his message or his actions in redacting the report.

BS. "Unethical" isn't defined as "Fort is going to scream about how wrong it was no matter what happens", and no one is interested in tying themselves into pretzels to try to find some way to satisfy the likes of you.

 

[Cecilie1200]

The integrity of our justice system took a blow with the dossier

Only in the sense that some freelance goober figured out so much before the pros did. We should be embarrassed that our authorities had to have their hands held. They should have been all over the Russian efforts and the slimy characters around trump from the start.

Figured out so much WHAT? In case you missed it while you were in the corner of your padded cell, frothing at the mouth, Mueller just told you it was crap.

YOU should be embarrassed that you think oppo dirt-digging is more reliable than the investigation of the Special Counsel YOU DEMANDED. Of course, that would require a sense of self-respect and two functioning brain cells existing in the same part of your head.

"The authorities should have been all over the crimes that didn't happen and investigating the evidence that didn't exist from the start!" Yeah, that's totally how law enforcement works.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Oh, it will be a major campaign issue. Progressives have made this their primary issue for 2020.

Hmm, no, you're wrong. It wont be top 3.

Oh, yeah, everyone's going to totally ignore that you leftist pusbags wasted two years and huge amounts of taxpayer dollars on an investigation based on nothing but frustrated petty vengeance, found not a fucking thing, AND THEN INSISTED THAT YOUR OWN INVESTIGATION WAS BIASED AND WANTED EVEN MORE.

Sure, no way THAT'S going to be any sort of issue. I'm sure the voters are just as willing to casually wave that away as you are.

 

[Cecilie1200]

‘No Collusion, No Obstruction’ Report Shows What Seems To Be Plenty Of Both

I agree!

No wonder you mistakenly think you're more expert on the law than Mueller or Barr: you keep reading left-wing blogs written by people almost as brain-damaged as you who ALSO think they're Clarence Darrow on the basis of just really, REALLY wanting Trump to be guilty of something.

Here's a tip, shitbrick: when the guy who wrote the report says "no collusion, insufficient evidence of obstruction", you can be reasonably certain that the report does NOT contain plenty of evidence of the things he just said weren't there. No amount of wanting it to be there changes that fact.

To the you're really telling us is: "There was an investigation, so that means there was evidence, so that means there was collusion, BECAUSE I ALREADY DECIDED IT WAS TRUE WAAAAAAHHHHHH!!!!!"

 

[Cecilie1200]

Mueller Report Is ‘More Damning’ Than Watergate Report: Nixon’s WH Counsel

I agree!

Yeah, and I'm sure that if he knew that, it would make him LESS certain of it, since having YOUR agreement is not any sort of endorsement.

Do us all a favor and realize that there are exactly three people on this board besides you who are piss-stupid enough to think "Look, a headline from Huffandstuff Post!" means anything more than a headline from the Onion. I'd be more likely to view headlines from the National Enquirer as "damning bombshell evidence" than I would Hufflepuff.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Quick question to all the leftist twat-waffles who spent weeks screaming that Barr's summary of conclusions was "lying": now that the report is out and the conclusions are exactly what Barr said they were, do we get an apology and admission that you were wrong and batshit insane?

 

[Lakhota]

Trump may have cleared the Barr - but SDNY is up ahead...

 

[Cecilie1200]

Democrats and the news media — but I repeat myself — are delivering their takes on the Mueller report just as quickly as they can read the report summaries by the 19-year-old interns who read the report.

Over at CNN, a panel of one shrieking Democrat dressed as nine different commentators declared that the report marked a tipping point at the beginning of the end of the noose tightening while the walls close in causing Trump to lose the 2016 election thus making Hillary the first woman president just like in their dreams.

At ABC, news analyst Poface Blather said the report is a damning indictment of Trump except without the indictment and when he comes to think about it, he actually added the word “damning” just for effect since without the indictment it doesn’t really make any sense.

Chuck Todd — whose face looks exactly the same upside down as right side up — not that that has anything to do with anything; it’s just kind of weird — anyway, Chuck Todd says that Attorney General William Barr has absolutely disgraced himself by saying the report showed no evidence of collusion when in fact the report uses very different words to say the same thing. Looking stupidly into the camera with his face either right side up or upside down — I couldn’t tell which — Todd said, “Just because a jury finds you not guilty that doesn’t mean you’re innocent, and just because a prosecutor doesn’t prosecute you that doesn’t mean we in the media can’t ceaselessly spin his words into an insinuation of guilt until you just want to put your fist through the television set and punch me in the chin or perhaps the forehead, whichever one is on top.”

To be fair to the MSM, the report did show Donald Trump in an unflattering light as a loud-mouthed, over-emotional and rash Donald Trump-like figure who has repaired the economy, defeated ISIS, and appointed great judges just like he said he would. So bite me.

MSM Declares Non Indictment Of Trump An Indictment Of Trump [Satire]

I'd say that about sums it up.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Obstruction of a crime

Thats silly. The obstruction is of the investigation. And if you think obstructing an investigation when the obstructor is confident there is no crime is retarded, then go complain to trump for doing it.