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.
The Mueller report clearly states on page one that the FBI opened the investigation on July 31, 2016, after an Australian diplomat informed the FBI about a disturbing conversation he’d had with Trump campaign aide George Papadopoulos two months before the WikiLeaks release of Clinton’s emails.I mentioned earlier that the main question I'd like the answer to is how Trump tried to get others to "obstruct".Yes, this has always been political. My point is that we can't accurately examine the obstruction issue based on what we know so far.Collusion is a non-issue now. The Dems are going after Trump on obstruction.
The two are mutually exclusive.
.
Horseshit, they are going after Trump because he won the 2016 election and because he is exposing the corruption of the DC deep state made up of both parties.
The Left and the Right don't need more information, since their opinions are set in stone, but the rest of us could use it.
.
what information do you think exists that is not in the Mueller report, the IG report, and the two congressional reports on this subject? The only information we don't really have is that related to the dossier and the FACT that the Hillary campaign paid Russians to create it. So if Mueller's charge was to investigate russian influence, why didn't he investigate this?
Did he ask them to, and then, when told that would be illegal, back off and move on? That would not obstruction.
Did he ask them to, and then, when told that would be illegal, try to get them to do it anyway? That would be a different story.
Those seem like perfectly reasonable and obvious questions for anyone who is curious.
.
"READ THE REPORT"!!! Dats what dey say. OX brain.
What blows my mind here is that the questions I'm asking are perfectly reasonable, and yet, so many are just automatically reverting to their standard tribal talking points.
If Trump is accused of trying to get people to obstruct, don't we want to know HOW? Did he back down when he was told it wouldn't be legal, or did he keep pressing? Did he threaten people if they wouldn't obstruct, or did he stop and play it by the law? That's the fundamental question here.
Holy crap.
I've always said that adherence to a partisan ideology robs a person of their curiosity, but seriously, does it rob people of ALL of it? Is no one even SLIGHTLY curious about the details, or is just sticking with the standard partisan script all that people care about at this point?
.
Nope. Dont care about anything arising FROM the "setup illegal" investigation based on false warrants and DEM hit pieces. Anything and everything after that is entrapment perhaps? Lock them up one by one. Comely Brennan Powers Yates Clapper Strocker Paige McCabe Rosie on down the list for lying to Courts for starters? Sedition?
Why don't you try going to the thread opened about it and click the link there, try reading the article.Actually, as I just mentioned, Mueller was tasked to decide if a crime was committed or not and give a report. He did both.It's not Mueller's responsibility to prove Trump committed crimes; that responsibility lies with Congress which should require Mueller's public testimony under oath.
Ummm....MUELLER was appointed Special Counsel to investigate, to prove a crime was committed or not.
Congress in not part if the JUDICIAL Branch of the govt...Rightly or wrongly, Mueller believed he did not have the power to indict a sitting president; therefore, he preserved evidence and passed the ball to Congress, the only branch of government with the power of Impeachment.Ummm....MUELLER was appointed Special Counsel to investigate, to prove a crime was committed or not.
Congress in not part if the JUDICIAL Branch of the govt...
His decision was no collusion and no call on obstruction. With that, his investigation was / is over.
He said he left the final final call to others - that would be the Deputy US AG - Rosenstein - and the US AG - Barr, the 2 men responsible for running the DOJ, part of the Judicial Branch. Mueller was working for THEM, NOT CONGRESS!
The Deputy US AG and the US AG DID make that call Mueller refused to make, the one he left for 'others' to make. Their decision was the same as his - NO COLLUSION, NO PROVEN GUILT OF COLLUSION.
We all know, though, that Mueller was not talking about his BOSSES - the Deputy US AG and the US AG. Mueller was talking about the Trump-hating Democrats in the House - THEY are who he meant when he said he left the decision on obstruction to 'others'.
The 2nd part of Mueller's Report was NOT written for his BOSSES. Mueller specifically wrote that 2nd part of his report for the DEMOCRATS IN CONGRESS BECAUSE THE 2ND PART OF THE REPORT WAS MEANT TO INCITE THE DEMOCRATS INTO INITIATING IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PRESIDENT!
THIS was not the work is an appointed Special Counsel working for the DOJ.
THIS was work done by the INSURANCE POLICY Strzok talked about in his texts.
Want more proof of that?
As I pointed out, evidence in the form of documents just released show MUELLER HID EVIDENCE (AGAIN) - HE OMITTED CRITICAL EVIDENCE FROM HIS REPORT AND INSTEAD PURPOSEFULLY USED ONLY PART OF A CONVERSATION TO CRAFT A FALSE NARRATIVE AND PERCEPTION OF GUILT OF OBSTRUCTION.
The reason Mueller listed this event / incident as possible evidence of obstruction but personally refused to call it obstruction is because HE KNEW he had crafted the whole thing to look like obstruction by leaving out / hiding that evidence but KNEW IT WAS NOT OBSTRUCTION!
(Again, see the thread on this, read the articles...Mueller just got busted doing the same thing he did years ago when he knowingly intentionally sent 4 innocent men to prison -- HE HID EVIDENCE!)
Mueller's ass needs to be dragged before Congress under oath to testify and answer questions.
If he refuses, perhaps some of the same techniques he used to intimidate, bully, and pressure some of the witnesses he interviewed during his investigation should be used on him?!Do you have a credible link for that claim?Again, see the thread on this, read the articles...Mueller just got busted doing the same thing he did years ago when he knowingly intentionally sent 4 innocent men to prison -- HE HID EVIDENCE!)
If Trump is accused of trying to get people to obstruct, don't we want to know HOW? Did he back down when he was told it wouldn't be legal, or did he keep pressing? Did he threaten people if they wouldn't obstruct, or did he stop and play it by the law? That's the fundamental question here.
Holy crap.
Mac: Hillary lost because she was more right wing than Duke. She would use ANY vehicle to get elected so in the end stood for NOTHING!!!The rust belt voted for jobs ahead of food stamps. I think Trump is delivering. Still a long way to go but steady she goes.My disappointment with Mueller is that he has chosen to leave so much up to interpretation and conjecture.
Predictably, all the silly wingers are highlighting only what supports their set-in-stone opinions and making assumptions that may or may not be true. Because that's what they do.
This stuff is too important for that. I understand his reticence to inject opinion on this matter, since his task was to find facts only. But we need more. The more detail the better, because detail forces out conjecture.
Maybe this will get so fucking ugly that he'll finally feel some obligation to let it all out and tell us what he really thinks. He seems like a guy who is simply too principled and professional for the times.
.
If Trump is accused of trying to get people to obstruct, don't we want to know HOW? Did he back down when he was told it wouldn't be legal, or did he keep pressing? Did he threaten people if they wouldn't obstruct, or did he stop and play it by the law? That's the fundamental question here.
Holy crap.
Here we have one blabbing about intellectual curiosity, who also blabs ignorant nonsense because he can't muster the curiosity to read. The provision making obstruction a felony does not make a difference between the attempt, and the successfully completed obstruction. That, if you think about it, is also perfectly logical. But then, since you can't muster the curiosity to read, you are falling for rightarded talkingpoints alleging that Trump is in the clear because some folks refused to follow his orders. He is not. It is also perfectly unnecessary for the statute to be applicable he threaten people. There is no question in any of the nonsense you spout, much less a "fundamental" one.
Holy crap, indeed.
My questions would center around the nature of the attempted obstruction.Yeah, agreed, can't argue. There certainly isn't a magic bullet here, especially when we already know the wings will paint anything to their liking.Maybe you're right Mac
he was hired to do a job , his 'opinion' would only muddy the judicial waters ~S~
Loose ends just make things easier for Hannity and Levin and Limbaugh to twist things as they tell their people what to think, that's all.
.Yeah, agreed, can't argue. There certainly isn't a magic bullet here, especially when we already know the wings will paint anything to their liking.Maybe you're right Mac
he was hired to do a job , his 'opinion' would only muddy the judicial waters ~S~
Loose ends just make things easier for Hannity and Levin and Limbaugh to twist things as they tell their people what to think, that's all.
.Yeah, agreed, can't argue. There certainly isn't a magic bullet here, especially when we already know the wings will paint anything to their liking.Maybe you're right Mac
he was hired to do a job , his 'opinion' would only muddy the judicial waters ~S~
Loose ends just make things easier for Hannity and Levin and Limbaugh to twist things as they tell their people what to think, that's all.
.Yeah, agreed, can't argue. There certainly isn't a magic bullet here, especially when we already know the wings will paint anything to their liking.Maybe you're right Mac
he was hired to do a job , his 'opinion' would only muddy the judicial waters ~S~
Loose ends just make things easier for Hannity and Levin and Limbaugh to twist things as they tell their people what to think, that's all.
.
Twist things?
They were the only ones saying correctly that there was no evidence in collusion.I'm pretty sure this whole thing has moved beyond collusion. For the most part, the Dems have given up on that and are concentrating on obstruction. That's where my questions for Mueller would be.My disappointment with Mueller is that he has chosen to leave so much up to interpretation and conjecture.
That's because he could find no evidence of collusion, despite a two-year multimillion-dollar investigation. When you don't have any evidence and you're not willing to be honest, you do exactly what Mueller is doing.
.
Muller's report says he tried to obstruct, but did not happen, because his orders were not carried out.
Trying and actual doing are two different things.
If there is no collusion, then there can not be an obstruction.
Such as, "did Trump bring it up, and then stop when told it could not be done legally, or did he push it and threaten people if they didn't follow his request regardless of its legality?"
I wouldn't look at the former as an impeachable offense, but I'd possibly look at the latter as one.
.
Clearly you don't understand my point.My disappointment with Mueller is that he has chosen to leave so much up to interpretation and conjecture.
Predictably, all the silly wingers are highlighting only what supports their set-in-stone opinions and making assumptions that may or may not be true. Because that's what they do.
This stuff is too important for that. I understand his reticence to inject opinion on this matter, since his task was to find facts only. But we need more. The more detail the better, because detail forces out conjecture.
Maybe this will get so fucking ugly that he'll finally feel some obligation to let it all out and tell us what he really thinks. He seems like a guy who is simply too principled and professional for the times.
.
How come you progs have so much difficulty dealing with a loss?
For one thing Mueller is unlike Comey, he knows his place. Secondly, look up the suggestions of "obstruction of justice". They too are not what you'd hope for.
I have a couple of questions on how Trump allegedly obstructed justice, and virtually all of this thread is just going off in all kinds of directions, repeating what I hear on talk radio.You must know "Trump obstructed" sounds an awful lot like "Trump colluded" which, as even you seem to admit, is now thoroughly debunked.What blows my mind here is that the questions I'm asking are perfectly reasonable, and yet, so many are just automatically reverting to their standard tribal talking points.
If Trump is accused of trying to get people to obstruct, don't we want to know HOW? Did he back down when he was told it wouldn't be legal, or did he keep pressing? Did he threaten people if they wouldn't obstruct, or did he stop and play it by the law? That's the fundamental question here.
Holy crap.
I've always said that adherence to a partisan ideology robs a person of their curiosity, but seriously, does it rob people of ALL of it? Is no one even SLIGHTLY curious about the details, or is just sticking with the standard partisan script all that people care about at this point?
.
The fact is Mueller's witch-hunt continued perhaps a year or more after it become clear to many observers that it was going nowhere. It has long been obvious that some just won't accept any result that doesn't include Trump's head. The continuing hand-wringing, and teeth-gnashing is proof the many were correct.
What seems a far bigger deal is the possibility that a cabal of top DOJ/FBI people used their offices and agencies and perhaps our media to influence and/or overturn a presidential election. Leaks, speculation, rumors, innuendo, and outright fabrications have been the daily routine for our MSM the last 2.5 years.
You seem far more concerned that Trump was unhappy about being pursued by those who may have been part of that cabal than you are about what those traitors tried to do to this country and our democracy.
Okay, dittos, got it.I mentioned earlier that the main question I'd like the answer to is how Trump tried to get others to "obstruct".Yes, this has always been political. My point is that we can't accurately examine the obstruction issue based on what we know so far.Collusion is a non-issue now. The Dems are going after Trump on obstruction.
The two are mutually exclusive.
.
Horseshit, they are going after Trump because he won the 2016 election and because he is exposing the corruption of the DC deep state made up of both parties.
The Left and the Right don't need more information, since their opinions are set in stone, but the rest of us could use it.
.
what information do you think exists that is not in the Mueller report, the IG report, and the two congressional reports on this subject? The only information we don't really have is that related to the dossier and the FACT that the Hillary campaign paid Russians to create it. So if Mueller's charge was to investigate russian influence, why didn't he investigate this?
Did he ask them to, and then, when told that would be illegal, back off and move on? That would not obstruction.
Did he ask them to, and then, when told that would be illegal, try to get them to do it anyway? That would be a different story.
Those seem like perfectly reasonable and obvious questions for anyone who is curious.
.
"READ THE REPORT"!!! Dats what dey say. OX brain.
What blows my mind here is that the questions I'm asking are perfectly reasonable, and yet, so many are just automatically reverting to their standard tribal talking points.
If Trump is accused of trying to get people to obstruct, don't we want to know HOW? Did he back down when he was told it wouldn't be legal, or did he keep pressing? Did he threaten people if they wouldn't obstruct, or did he stop and play it by the law? That's the fundamental question here.
Holy crap.
I've always said that adherence to a partisan ideology robs a person of their curiosity, but seriously, does it rob people of ALL of it? Is no one even SLIGHTLY curious about the details, or is just sticking with the standard partisan script all that people care about at this point?
.
Nope. Dont care about anything arising FROM the "setup illegal" investigation based on false warrants and DEM hit pieces. Anything and everything after that is entrapment perhaps? Lock them up one by one. Comely Brennan Powers Yates Clapper Strocker Paige McCabe Rosie on down the list for lying to Courts for starters? Sedition?
I can't find the answers to my questions in the report. I've looked.If Trump is accused of trying to get people to obstruct, don't we want to know HOW? Did he back down when he was told it wouldn't be legal, or did he keep pressing? Did he threaten people if they wouldn't obstruct, or did he stop and play it by the law? That's the fundamental question here.
Holy crap.
Here we have one blabbing about intellectual curiosity, who also blabs ignorant nonsense because he can't muster the curiosity to read. The provision making obstruction a felony does not make a difference between the attempt, and the successfully completed obstruction. That, if you think about it, is also perfectly logical. But then, since you can't muster the curiosity to read, you are falling for rightarded talkingpoints alleging that Trump is in the clear because some folks refused to follow his orders. He is not. It is also perfectly unnecessary for the statute to be applicable he threaten people. There is no question in any of the nonsense you spout, much less a "fundamental" one.
Holy crap, indeed.
Let's not try the whole case here, please.My questions would center around the nature of the attempted obstruction.Yeah, agreed, can't argue. There certainly isn't a magic bullet here, especially when we already know the wings will paint anything to their liking.
Loose ends just make things easier for Hannity and Levin and Limbaugh to twist things as they tell their people what to think, that's all.
.Yeah, agreed, can't argue. There certainly isn't a magic bullet here, especially when we already know the wings will paint anything to their liking.
Loose ends just make things easier for Hannity and Levin and Limbaugh to twist things as they tell their people what to think, that's all.
.Yeah, agreed, can't argue. There certainly isn't a magic bullet here, especially when we already know the wings will paint anything to their liking.
Loose ends just make things easier for Hannity and Levin and Limbaugh to twist things as they tell their people what to think, that's all.
.Yeah, agreed, can't argue. There certainly isn't a magic bullet here, especially when we already know the wings will paint anything to their liking.
Loose ends just make things easier for Hannity and Levin and Limbaugh to twist things as they tell their people what to think, that's all.
.
Twist things?
They were the only ones saying correctly that there was no evidence in collusion.I'm pretty sure this whole thing has moved beyond collusion. For the most part, the Dems have given up on that and are concentrating on obstruction. That's where my questions for Mueller would be.My disappointment with Mueller is that he has chosen to leave so much up to interpretation and conjecture.
That's because he could find no evidence of collusion, despite a two-year multimillion-dollar investigation. When you don't have any evidence and you're not willing to be honest, you do exactly what Mueller is doing.
.
Muller's report says he tried to obstruct, but did not happen, because his orders were not carried out.
Trying and actual doing are two different things.
If there is no collusion, then there can not be an obstruction.
Such as, "did Trump bring it up, and then stop when told it could not be done legally, or did he push it and threaten people if they didn't follow his request regardless of its legality?"
I wouldn't look at the former as an impeachable offense, but I'd possibly look at the latter as one.
.
QUESTION-------->
1. Did Trump fire Comey, and is that obstruction? ANSWER...….yes he did...….and no, that is not obstruction.
2. Did Trump want to fire/request someone fire Mueller? ANSWER----------> Yes he did, as he stated the Special Counsel was conflicted.
3. Is that act obstruction? ANSWER--------> No it is not, unless he stated it was to stop the investigation, plus, the Special Counsel was NOT fired. Trump did not need anyone to do it, he could have done it himself. He obviously changed his mind.
QUESTIONS for Mueller when testifying---------->
1. When you hired Wiseman, did you have a conversation at anytime on his knowledge that he gained in August of 2016, that the dossier was non factual?
2. Did you, as Special Prosecutor ask your lead investigator Peter Strozck what, if any evidence he had?
3. When did you become aware that there was absolutely no evidence of collusion?
4. Why did you renew the FISA warrants?
5. Why did you STOP renewing the FISA warrants in July of 2017, and is that the time frame that you discovered that there was no collusion?
6. Why, when you found out there was no collusion, did you NOT tell the American people that President Trump was not treasonous, but you were still looking into other aspects of the case that did NOT involve foreign interference?
7. Who, to the best of your investigative knowledge, does Prof Mifsud work for; and who was he working for the day he interviewed Papa D?
8. Was Stephan Halper an FBI asset, or a CIA asset, and which agency, of which country,(s) asked for his services?
9. Which agency did the blonde bombshell work for, that tried to set up Papa D?
10. Is there a surveillance tape, or transcripts of the meeting between Mifsud, or Halper, and Papa D? And if so, where is it?
11. Was there......in your investigative opinion, any other country besides Russia, who was garnered to help either candidate interfere with our elections?
12. Why did you arrest Papa D before he cleared customs when returning from Europe, and what were you looking for in his personal possessions? Why did you think he had something in his possession, and how did you find out he MIGHT have something in his possession-) (like 10,00 dollars, ho-ho, Mueller would start sweating then)
These questions Mac, along with others, is WHY Mueller doesn't want to testify, along with what he says he will only testify to!
See, I understand you saying that the Dems have moved on from collusion/conspiracy to obstruction...….well except for Dragonlady and a few others, lol. But have you ever asked yourself why they don't even want to touch on it, to satisfy the supposed reason this whole thing started-)
QUESTION---------> What is paragraph one that actually OPENED this investigation? ANSWER-----------> Carter Paige? Papa D? OK, then if that is your answer, along with all the rest of the Democrats, then we need to find out if the PREDICATE was enough to open a counter intelligence investigation! That means we have to INVESTIGATE the INVESTIGATORS, their evidence, how they acquired the evidence, and their motives.
Let me be the 1st to tell you that you are going to find out-----------> This case was NEVER about collusion/conspiracy on the Special Counsels side, it was always about OBSTRUCTION! They KNEW...…...or at the very least Wiseman knew, in Aug or maybe Oct of 2016, that the dossier was a fraud. That means, that at the very least, when Trump took office in January of 17, he should have been informed of the investigation and warned. HE WASN'T, by the heads in Washington DC. But, he had already been warned by Admiral Mike Rogers, the actual hero of this story, and that will come out too.
Trust me on this, although nobody will ever be able to prove it--------------> COMEY was fired because he LIED to the President, and Trump knew it, because Rogers told him a few weeks before, EXACTLY what the hell was going on! So did MOST of the Democrats, which is EXACTLY why they confirmed Sessions, as they knew they could probably get him to recuse because of that meeting in Washington, opening up a clear road to a special counsel!
The Democrats were extremely smart on how this was all pulled off, and I mean that, and when I say Democrats, I mean the DNC, and the Democrats in the old administration. Personally, I can't believe the Republicans were smart enough to unravel it. Were it not for a few missteps, nobody ever would have known, and again, we can Thank Admiral Mike Rogers for getting the ball rolling.
I'm talking about how Trump allegedly obstructed justice. That's where my questions are.Mac: Hillary lost because she was more right wing than Duke. She would use ANY vehicle to get elected so in the end stood for NOTHING!!!The rust belt voted for jobs ahead of food stamps. I think Trump is delivering. Still a long way to go but steady she goes.My disappointment with Mueller is that he has chosen to leave so much up to interpretation and conjecture.
Predictably, all the silly wingers are highlighting only what supports their set-in-stone opinions and making assumptions that may or may not be true. Because that's what they do.
This stuff is too important for that. I understand his reticence to inject opinion on this matter, since his task was to find facts only. But we need more. The more detail the better, because detail forces out conjecture.
Maybe this will get so fucking ugly that he'll finally feel some obligation to let it all out and tell us what he really thinks. He seems like a guy who is simply too principled and professional for the times.
.
As for the Russia shit? No collusion.........damn stupid to have suggested it in the first place.
Greg
What blows my mind here is that the questions I'm asking are perfectly reasonable, and yet, so many are just automatically reverting to their standard tribal talking points.
If Trump is accused of trying to get people to obstruct, don't we want to know HOW? Did he back down when he was told it wouldn't be legal, or did he keep pressing? Did he threaten people if they wouldn't obstruct, or did he stop and play it by the law? That's the fundamental question here.
Holy crap.
I've always said that adherence to a partisan ideology robs a person of their curiosity, but seriously, does it rob people of ALL of it? Is no one even SLIGHTLY curious about the details, or is just sticking with the standard partisan script all that people care about at this point?
.I think you will find it much easier to answer your questions after reading Volume II of Mueller's Report; there just isn't any other rational way of arguing whether or not Trump attempted to obstruct justice.f Trump is accused of trying to get people to obstruct, don't we want to know HOW? Did he back down when he was told it wouldn't be legal, or did he keep pressing? Did he threaten people if they wouldn't obstruct, or did he stop and play it by the law? That's the fundamental question here.
Read the Mueller Report: Searchable Document and Index (Vol. II, P.9)
"I. BACKGROUND LEGAL AND EVIDENTIARY PRINCIPLES
"A. Legal Framework of Obstruction of Justice
"The May 17, 2017 Appointment Order and the Special Counsel regulations provide this Office with jurisdiction to investigate 'federal crimes committed in the course of, and with intent to interfere with, the Special Counsel’s investigation, such as perjury, obstruction of justice, destruction of evidence, and intimidation of witnesses.' 28 C.F.R. § 600.4(a).
"Because of that description of our jurisdiction, we sought evidence for our obstruction-of-justice investigation with the elements of obstruction offenses in mind.
"Our evidentiary analysis is similarly focused on the elements of such offenses, although we do not draw conclusions on the ultimate questions that govern a prosecutorial decision under the Principles of Federal Prosecution. SeeJustice Manual § 9-27.000 et seq. (2018)."
Nothing there suggests that Trump committed obstruction...dumbed down, it simply reads “we suspected the potential so we looked into it”
georgephillip says:
“I just know Trump is quilty because I want him to be.”
Lifelong Republican Bob Mueller's conclusion sums up Trump's obstruction charges:Nothing there suggests that Trump committed obstruction...dumbed down, it simply reads “we suspected the potential so we looked into it”
georgephillip says:
“I just know Trump is quilty because I want him to be.”
That's good to know. I've looked and must have missed it. Where?Fundamental questions that were addressed in the report.If Trump is accused of trying to get people to obstruct, don't we want to know HOW? Did he back down when he was told it wouldn't be legal, or did he keep pressing? Did he threaten people if they wouldn't obstruct, or did he stop and play it by the law? That's the fundamental question here.
Alleged By Whom ??Mac1958 said:I'm talking about how Trump allegedly obstructed justice. That's where my questions are.
.
The report says that he tried to get people to change their stories. Do you not know that?Alleged By Whom ??Mac1958 said:I'm talking about how Trump allegedly obstructed justice. That's where my questions are.
.
Progs That Put All Their Impeachment Eggs
In The Mueller Report Basket
Like Maddow, And CNN
Whose Ratings Plummeted With Rocket Power ??
Look For Those Lost Viewers At The Polls In 2020
They're The Ones The Noise Has To Convince
They May Even Remember Kavanaugh....
