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.
It’s like what Steve Bannon and Michael Cohen said. Once they start going after trumps finances? It’s over. He’s freaking out.
Trump might be the first president to leave office in a straight jacket.
Trump might be the first president to leave office in a straight jacket.
Doesn't matter what it "would have" done. It wasn't in the directive. Simple as that.
I wouldn't know. I don't claim to speak for him. I guess you do but I wouldn't go there.
Obstruction of justice does not require an underlying crime. Ask Martha Stewart about that.I do find this rather amazing in that apparently the president may possibly be guilty of obstruction of justice in the commission of a crime that was never committed in the first place. Got to be kidding me, so all I have to do is create a false narrative and anyone attempting to discredit said narrative is possibly guilty of obstruction of justice? So how did the president actually obstruct the investigation?
I think the key is burden of proof? Good luck with that.
Barr clearly stated what the report said...by law.That's nothing but your biased opinion.Prejudices? Opinion? WTF?Probably because he was inserting his own prejudices into the case.LOL...Then stop doing it fuck head.
Mueller told you his findings, dope.
Guess what. They don't match Barr's.
Barr told the truth.
Mueller gave his opinion.
It wasn't his job to give his biased opinion.
Comey made the same mistake.
Like DOJ policies?
You do understand that the report came first and Barr misrepresented it. Not the other way around.
You lie about everything.
Barr said case closed.
Mueller said case closed.
Barr summed up what the Mueller Report states.....then released the report.....and then Mueller goes out and simply states what's in it....just like Barr....only he emphasized his own personal opinion that has nothing to do with the law.
Case closed......but......
You want a do-over.
Not my opinion at all. Barr summed up the narrative he wanted to create and then waited a month to release the report.
Mueller exposed him. It's that simple.
Do over?
No one said it was finished in the first place, dope.
Well, impeachment IS a political act. Is it not?Democrats will only move to impeach if/when it is politically expedient to do so, and for no other reason.
They are not waiting on evidence (except that in the unlikely even that such evidence does make impeachment politically expedient)
They are not concerned about the Senate vote.
They don't care if Trump did anything.
They don't care if Trump did nothing.
When internal polling shows that impeachment will not cause them to take a corn-hole ass raping in 2020, they will impeach.
It is that simple.
Everything else is window dressing.
.
Absolutely.Well, impeachment IS a political act. Is it not?
Doesn't matter what it "would have" done. It wasn't in the directive. Simple as that.
It didn't have to be. Mueller could have opined on anything he desired. He didn't have any limitations in regards to his report. So he left it ambiguous on purpose. He wanted to make Trump look guilty without actually saying it.
I wouldn't know. I don't claim to speak for him. I guess you do but I wouldn't go there.
All indications point that way, don't they? Do you think it was pure coincidence most of his staff in this investigation were all Trump haters or Hillary lovers? Do you think it was an accident he never looked into the FISA warrant or Steele report?
Again, that wasn't his assignment either. I understand he also didn't check the weather report for Auckland for last October 12th for the same reason.
Barr clearly stated what the report said...by law.That's nothing but your biased opinion.Prejudices? Opinion? WTF?Probably because he was inserting his own prejudices into the case.LOL...
Mueller told you his findings, dope.
Guess what. They don't match Barr's.
Barr told the truth.
Mueller gave his opinion.
It wasn't his job to give his biased opinion.
Comey made the same mistake.
Like DOJ policies?
You do understand that the report came first and Barr misrepresented it. Not the other way around.
You lie about everything.
Barr said case closed.
Mueller said case closed.
Barr summed up what the Mueller Report states.....then released the report.....and then Mueller goes out and simply states what's in it....just like Barr....only he emphasized his own personal opinion that has nothing to do with the law.
Case closed......but......
You want a do-over.
Not my opinion at all. Barr summed up the narrative he wanted to create and then waited a month to release the report.
Mueller exposed him. It's that simple.
Do over?
No one said it was finished in the first place, dope.
Mueller tried to insert elements that don't exist in a court of law.
"OH GEE....I COULDN'T EXONERATE TRUMP".....(MORE LIKELY WOULDN'T EXONERATE TRUMP REGARDLESS OF THE FACTS) https://www.americanthinker.com/art...eller_is_a_sleazy_shameful_partisan_hack.html
May 30, 2019
Robert Mueller is a Sleazy, Shameful, Partisan Hack
By Patricia McCarthy
Robert Mueller should have been disbarred decades ago, along with his enforcer Andrew Weismann; that is how egregious his record of malfeasance is, all matters of public record.
What he did Wednesday morning was his final IED tossed at the President to placate his Democrat overlords who desperately want to impeach Trump. But for what? Mueller gave no list of felonies in his report nor did he detail any crimes of which Trump is even amorphously guilty.
This entire enterprise, the fabricated notion that Trump and/or persons within his campaign colluded with Russians to cheat his way to the presidency was illegitimate from the outset. It did not happen. Not even a very expensive team of Trump-haters could find their way to naming anyone on the Trump side guilty of anything illegal having to do with the election. And we can be certain that if they could have bent and twisted any relationship, any meeting, any friendship, any past association to find Trump guilty of anything, this band of malefactors would have run with it. They found nothing but gossip and innuendo, rather like a clique of mean girls in middle school.
Volume two of Mueller's report was entirely unnecessary but for this gang of thugs' need to vent and hopefully give the Democrats something with which to move ahead with impeachment.
True to form, the dim bulb Democrats are such legal ignoramuses they have continued to insist the report found Trump guilty of all manner of crimes even though it did not. We can be sure that if they had discovered anything useful, they would have used it and recommended charges. But they did not.
So on Wednesday morning, a shaky and seemingly anxious Mueller went before the cameras to say the opposite of what he had told AG Barr, that it was only the OLC (Office of Legal Counsel) guidelines that prevented him for exonerating the President. Barr has testified that on at least two occasions, Mueller told him those guidelines had nothing to do with his final report. There were others present when he said this to Barr.
So, who had the gun to Mueller's jowly head? (He resembles the canine Mastiff.) He has most likely been on the outs with the DC social establishment who were enraged by his report. They had universally assumed it was their ticket to unseating the man. So shocked by Mueller's findings, the ruling elites of the beltway have probably exorcised Mueller from their midst.
Who made him embarrass himself by offering the Democrats a new path to impeachment? Who has something on Bob Mueller? He's weathered criminal accusations before and retained his positions when he should have been permanently kicked out of the legal profession never to practice law again. He should never have been assigned as a special counsel to investigate President Trump, especially when everyone knew by then that it was the Clinton campaign that had commissioned and paid for the fake dossier and that none of the principals involved were Russian. They were paid operatives of the FBI, DOJ and CIA.
Just who among the Trump trolls got the camera-shy Mueller to belittle himself Wednesday morning? James Comey? John Brennan? Does someone in power have something on Mueller? Wouldn't we all like to know. The man seemed at the end of his rope. Maybe it was all about fund-raising. If so, how cheap is that?
Much has been written already about the sheer pettiness of what Mueller did and said on Wednesday morning. Many actual legal scholars have commented; Alan Dershowitz, Sean Davis, the guys at Powerline and of course Mark Levin. Given their analyses, it is safe to say that Mueller stepped in a tar pit that may well fossilize this pathetic man. He has sacrificed his entire career on the altar of the unscrupulous politics of the Democrats, who refuse still to accept the results of the 2016 election.
I hope that they will suffer the consequences of their own bitterness. It is likely that the several investigations into the origins of the collusion fakery will come to light. Much of the truth has been part of the public realm for well over a year. It is time for it to be forced upon the resistant media outlets who have bent over backwards to conceal it. Chances are that CNN and MSNBC will shutter their operations rather than tell the truth of this coup attempt that is reminiscent of the 1964 film Seven Days in May.
Many people have suggested for many months now that the counterfeit dossier that was used to jumpstart the investigation of Trump was devised to conceal the years of spying, egregious surveillance, begun under Obama, in fact ordered by Obama perhaps as early as 2012.
Remember when Maxine Waters bragged about Obama's database; "He has everything on everyone"? We now know Samantha Power unmasked hundreds of people in her apparent drive to sabotage Israel and help the Palestinians. Since Obama took office, the Democrat party has been transformed into a criminal enterprise, police-state in nature. Obama's spies assumed they would never be exposed, that their pulling the strings of government would be their unimpeded mission in perpetuity, passed on only to their chosen successors.
But exposed they have been and now they are desperate to change the narrative. Maybe that was Mueller's goal Wednesday morning, an attempt to derail the declassification of documents that are sure to embarrass if not prove criminal acts by many denizens of the deep state.
Clearly Mueller hopes to avoid any appearances before any congressional committees. He appeared to be downright terrified of such a fate. Why did he do it? He offered nothing new but the lie about the OLC being the reason he could not indict. Not true. If he had found anything, he would have used it. And as Scott Adams asked on Twitter, what is the difference between these two statements: "If we had confidence that the president did not commit a crime, we would have said so." or "If we had confidence the president committed a crime, we would have said so." Are they equal? Indeed they are.
So, what did Mueller hope to achieve? He did energize the legally illiterate, Trump-hating left and their candidates for the presidency but other than that, all he did was demean himself and his ridiculous report. If he had been interested in the truth and the burnishing his legacy, he would have brought to light the falsity of the dossier and its provenance but he did not. May we never see his kind again, the kind that abuses their positions of power for the indiscriminate destruction of innocents.
Barr clearly stated what the report said...by law.
Mueller tried to insert elements that don't exist in a court of law.
His assignment had zero to do with "opining". He was there to find facts, not "opine".
Again, that wasn't his assignment either. I understand he also didn't check the weather report for Auckland for last October 12th for the same reason.
And I don't know, or care, who was on his staff. I'm sure it was investigators. And no, I'm not willing to plug in comic book fantasies to what is a simple (and boring) mundane operation. I prefer to dabble in Reality.
Read Mueller's appointment letter which limited his investigation. He was charged with investigating individuals associated with the Donald Trump campaign and matters that arose directly from that investigation. He was not commission to investigate Comey nor Hillary Clinton campaign. Looking into FISA warrants would be for the purpose investigating the FBI. The Steel Dossier is mostly rumors and gossip which would not be admissible in court. Republican pushed very hard to limit Mueller investigations and now you criticize Mueller because he didn't investigate Clinton and the FBI.Doesn't matter what it "would have" done. It wasn't in the directive. Simple as that.
It didn't have to be. Mueller could have opined on anything he desired. He didn't have any limitations in regards to his report. So he left it ambiguous on purpose. He wanted to make Trump look guilty without actually saying it.
I wouldn't know. I don't claim to speak for him. I guess you do but I wouldn't go there.
All indications point that way, don't they? Do you think it was pure coincidence most of his staff in this investigation were all Trump haters or Hillary lovers? Do you think it was an accident he never looked into the FISA warrant or Steele report?
Most important thing said: MUELLER: 'If we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so'
MUELLER: 'If we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so'
But, the GOP are going to continue to spin, spin, spin!
To liberals, comfort is their reality. They could not and still can’t beat Trump so their comfort is derived from “he cheated”
Read Mueller's appointment letter which limited his investigation. He was charged with investigating individuals associated with the Donald Trump campaign and matters that arose directly from that investigation. He was not commission to investigate Comey nor Hillary Clinton campaign. Looking into FISA warrants would be for the purpose investigating the FBI. The Steel Dossier is mostly rumors and gossip which would not be admissible in court. Republican pushed very hard to limit Mueller investigations and now you criticize Mueller because he didn't investigate Clinton and the FBI.Doesn't matter what it "would have" done. It wasn't in the directive. Simple as that.
It didn't have to be. Mueller could have opined on anything he desired. He didn't have any limitations in regards to his report. So he left it ambiguous on purpose. He wanted to make Trump look guilty without actually saying it.
I wouldn't know. I don't claim to speak for him. I guess you do but I wouldn't go there.
All indications point that way, don't they? Do you think it was pure coincidence most of his staff in this investigation were all Trump haters or Hillary lovers? Do you think it was an accident he never looked into the FISA warrant or Steele report?
Rosenstein letter appointing Mueller special counsel
Actually Barr clarified....Mueller muddied everything. Barr was reading anything into the report. He simply reported the conclusions.Barr clearly stated what the report said...by law.That's nothing but your biased opinion.Prejudices? Opinion? WTF?Probably because he was inserting his own prejudices into the case.
Barr told the truth.
Mueller gave his opinion.
It wasn't his job to give his biased opinion.
Comey made the same mistake.
Like DOJ policies?
You do understand that the report came first and Barr misrepresented it. Not the other way around.
You lie about everything.
Barr said case closed.
Mueller said case closed.
Barr summed up what the Mueller Report states.....then released the report.....and then Mueller goes out and simply states what's in it....just like Barr....only he emphasized his own personal opinion that has nothing to do with the law.
Case closed......but......
You want a do-over.
Not my opinion at all. Barr summed up the narrative he wanted to create and then waited a month to release the report.
Mueller exposed him. It's that simple.
Do over?
No one said it was finished in the first place, dope.
Mueller tried to insert elements that don't exist in a court of law.
"OH GEE....I COULDN'T EXONERATE TRUMP".....(MORE LIKELY WOULDN'T EXONERATE TRUMP REGARDLESS OF THE FACTS) https://www.americanthinker.com/art...eller_is_a_sleazy_shameful_partisan_hack.html
May 30, 2019
Robert Mueller is a Sleazy, Shameful, Partisan Hack
By Patricia McCarthy
Robert Mueller should have been disbarred decades ago, along with his enforcer Andrew Weismann; that is how egregious his record of malfeasance is, all matters of public record.
What he did Wednesday morning was his final IED tossed at the President to placate his Democrat overlords who desperately want to impeach Trump. But for what? Mueller gave no list of felonies in his report nor did he detail any crimes of which Trump is even amorphously guilty.
This entire enterprise, the fabricated notion that Trump and/or persons within his campaign colluded with Russians to cheat his way to the presidency was illegitimate from the outset. It did not happen. Not even a very expensive team of Trump-haters could find their way to naming anyone on the Trump side guilty of anything illegal having to do with the election. And we can be certain that if they could have bent and twisted any relationship, any meeting, any friendship, any past association to find Trump guilty of anything, this band of malefactors would have run with it. They found nothing but gossip and innuendo, rather like a clique of mean girls in middle school.
Volume two of Mueller's report was entirely unnecessary but for this gang of thugs' need to vent and hopefully give the Democrats something with which to move ahead with impeachment.
True to form, the dim bulb Democrats are such legal ignoramuses they have continued to insist the report found Trump guilty of all manner of crimes even though it did not. We can be sure that if they had discovered anything useful, they would have used it and recommended charges. But they did not.
So on Wednesday morning, a shaky and seemingly anxious Mueller went before the cameras to say the opposite of what he had told AG Barr, that it was only the OLC (Office of Legal Counsel) guidelines that prevented him for exonerating the President. Barr has testified that on at least two occasions, Mueller told him those guidelines had nothing to do with his final report. There were others present when he said this to Barr.
So, who had the gun to Mueller's jowly head? (He resembles the canine Mastiff.) He has most likely been on the outs with the DC social establishment who were enraged by his report. They had universally assumed it was their ticket to unseating the man. So shocked by Mueller's findings, the ruling elites of the beltway have probably exorcised Mueller from their midst.
Who made him embarrass himself by offering the Democrats a new path to impeachment? Who has something on Bob Mueller? He's weathered criminal accusations before and retained his positions when he should have been permanently kicked out of the legal profession never to practice law again. He should never have been assigned as a special counsel to investigate President Trump, especially when everyone knew by then that it was the Clinton campaign that had commissioned and paid for the fake dossier and that none of the principals involved were Russian. They were paid operatives of the FBI, DOJ and CIA.
Just who among the Trump trolls got the camera-shy Mueller to belittle himself Wednesday morning? James Comey? John Brennan? Does someone in power have something on Mueller? Wouldn't we all like to know. The man seemed at the end of his rope. Maybe it was all about fund-raising. If so, how cheap is that?
Much has been written already about the sheer pettiness of what Mueller did and said on Wednesday morning. Many actual legal scholars have commented; Alan Dershowitz, Sean Davis, the guys at Powerline and of course Mark Levin. Given their analyses, it is safe to say that Mueller stepped in a tar pit that may well fossilize this pathetic man. He has sacrificed his entire career on the altar of the unscrupulous politics of the Democrats, who refuse still to accept the results of the 2016 election.
I hope that they will suffer the consequences of their own bitterness. It is likely that the several investigations into the origins of the collusion fakery will come to light. Much of the truth has been part of the public realm for well over a year. It is time for it to be forced upon the resistant media outlets who have bent over backwards to conceal it. Chances are that CNN and MSNBC will shutter their operations rather than tell the truth of this coup attempt that is reminiscent of the 1964 film Seven Days in May.
Many people have suggested for many months now that the counterfeit dossier that was used to jumpstart the investigation of Trump was devised to conceal the years of spying, egregious surveillance, begun under Obama, in fact ordered by Obama perhaps as early as 2012.
Remember when Maxine Waters bragged about Obama's database; "He has everything on everyone"? We now know Samantha Power unmasked hundreds of people in her apparent drive to sabotage Israel and help the Palestinians. Since Obama took office, the Democrat party has been transformed into a criminal enterprise, police-state in nature. Obama's spies assumed they would never be exposed, that their pulling the strings of government would be their unimpeded mission in perpetuity, passed on only to their chosen successors.
But exposed they have been and now they are desperate to change the narrative. Maybe that was Mueller's goal Wednesday morning, an attempt to derail the declassification of documents that are sure to embarrass if not prove criminal acts by many denizens of the deep state.
Clearly Mueller hopes to avoid any appearances before any congressional committees. He appeared to be downright terrified of such a fate. Why did he do it? He offered nothing new but the lie about the OLC being the reason he could not indict. Not true. If he had found anything, he would have used it. And as Scott Adams asked on Twitter, what is the difference between these two statements: "If we had confidence that the president did not commit a crime, we would have said so." or "If we had confidence the president committed a crime, we would have said so." Are they equal? Indeed they are.
So, what did Mueller hope to achieve? He did energize the legally illiterate, Trump-hating left and their candidates for the presidency but other than that, all he did was demean himself and his ridiculous report. If he had been interested in the truth and the burnishing his legacy, he would have brought to light the falsity of the dossier and its provenance but he did not. May we never see his kind again, the kind that abuses their positions of power for the indiscriminate destruction of innocents.
LOL...
Your posts ate getting long and ranty.
Barr clearly stated what the report said...by law.
Mueller tried to insert elements that don't exist in a court of law.
Barr clearly stated what he wanted the narrative to be which had little to do with the actual findings as Mueller has now shown.
Mueller was never taking this case to a court of law, dope. Neither was Barr.
Barr was Mueller's boss. If he wasn't satisfied with how Mueller reached his conclusions, he could have asked him to amend his report to include a determination of criminality or not. He did not and instead chose that opportunity to muddy the findings rather than clarify them.
