New Posts
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

Crooked Bob Mueller To Testify To July 17.....

llovejim

Current Champion
QUOTE="The Thinker, post: 2460229, member: 21794"]Politics versus REALITY. Mueller edited a voicemail in his report to give a completely false impression of what was actually said on the voicemail. The editing gave the distinct impression the lawyer had engaged in misconduct. That's called slander, Einstein. Please educate yourself before any additional pecking:

https://thehill.com/policy/national-security/447366-judge-releases-trump-attorney-voicemail-reviewed-by-mueller[/QUOTE]
how sad and lame you and dowd and nunes are to so desperately try to say Mueller's report in any substantial way mischaractarized or misrepresented the gist of what Trump's crooked lying lawyer Dowd said to Flynn in a voicemail, the transcript is shown here:

"Hey, Rob, uhm, this is John again. Uh, maybe, I-I-I-'m-I'm sympathetic; I understand your situation, but let me see if I can't ... state it in ... starker terms," the message to Rob Kelner said. "If you have ... and it wouldn't surprise me if you've gone on to make a deal with, and, uh, work with the government, uh ... I understand that you can't join the joint defense; so that's one thing. If, on the other hand, we have, there's information that ... implicates the President, then we've got a national security issue, or maybe a national security issue, I don't know ... some issue, we got to-we got to deal with, not only for the President, but for the country. So ... uh ... you know, then-then, you know, we need some kind of heads up. Um, just for the sake of ... protecting all our interests, if we can, without you having to give up any ... confidential information. So, uhm, and if it's the former, then, you know, remember what we've always said about the President and his feelings toward Flynn and, that still remains, but — Well, in any event, uhm, let me know, and, uh, I appreciate your listening and taking the time. Thanks, Pal."

how is that any different than the way this voicemail was described in the Mueller Report- get someone who can read see if there is any real difference-

I understand your situation, but let me see if I can't state it in starker terms. . . . It wouldn't surprise me if you've gone on to make a deal with ... the government. ... If . .. there's information that implicates the President, then we've got a national security issue, . . . so, you know, . . . we need some kind of heads up. Um, just for the sake of protecting all our interests if we can .... Remember what we've always said about the ' President and his feelings toward Flynn and, that still remains ....

On November 23, 2017, Flynn's attorneys returned the call from the President's personal counsel to acknowledge receipt of the voicemail. Flynn 's attorneys reiterated that they were no longer in a position to share information under any sort of privilege. According to Flynn's attorneys, the President's personal counsel was indignant and vocal in his disagreement.

The President also privately asked advisors to pass messages to Flynn conveying that the President still cared about him and encouraging him to stay strong.832 In late November 2017, Flynn began to cooperate with this Office. On November 22, 2017, Flynn withdrew from a joint defense agreement he had with the President.833 Flynn's counsel told the President's personal counsel and counsel for the White House that Flynn could no longer have confidential communications with the White House or the President.834 Later that night, the President's personal counsel left a voicemail for Flynn's counsel that said: I understand your situation, but let me see if I can't state it in starker terms. . . . t wouldn't surprise me if you've gone on to make a deal with ... the government. ... f . .. there's information that implicates the President, then we've got a national security issue, . . . so, you know, . . . we need some kind of heads up. Um, just for the sake of protecting all our interests if we can .... Remember what we've always said about the ' President and his feelings toward Flynn and, that still remains .... 835 On November 23, 2017, Flynn's attorneys returned the call from the President's personal counsel to acknowledge receipt of the voicemail.836 Fly nn 's attorneys reiterated that they were no longer in a position to share information under any sort of privilege.837 According to Flynn's attorneys, the President's personal counsel was indignant and vocal in his disagreement.838

832 See Priebus I /18/17 302, at 9-10 (the President asked Priebus to contact Flynn the week he was terminated to convey that the President still cared about him and felt bad about what happened to him; Priebus thought the President did not want Flynn to have a problem with him); McFarland 12/22/ 17 302, at 18 (about a month or two after Flynn was terminated, the President asked McFarland to get in touch with Flynn and tell him that he was a good guy, he should stay strong, and the President felt bad for him); Flynn 1/19/18 302, at 9 (recalling the call from Priebus and an additional call from Hicks who said she wanted to relay on behalf of the President that the President hoped Flynn was okay); Christie 2/13/19 302, at 3 (describing a phone conversation between Kushner and Flynn the day after Flynn was fired where Kushner said, "You know the President respects you. The President cares about you. I' II get the President to send out a positive tweet about you later," and the President nodded his assent to Kushner's comment promising a tweet).

from Page 121 of Volume II of the Mueller Report, or page 333 of 448 of the whole document as shown here in this PDF-

https://www.justice.gov/storage/report.pdf





 

llovejim

Current Champion
Mueller should go to prison for his phony 2-year witch hunt that turned up nothing.
You should have to repeat second grade for believing the right wing bullshit about Mueller doing anything wrong or that the report did not show clearly 10 examples of obstruction of justice. go to your room.
 

Nutty Cortez

Dummy (D) NY
You should have to repeat second grade for believing the right wing bullshit about Mueller doing anything wrong or that the report did not show clearly 10 examples of obstruction of justice. go to your room.

lol Tweeting was used as an 'example '

Can you show me where in the report it says Mueller had probable cause to indict a sitting president but because of the DOJ rules they couldn't indict him?

You can't . Doesn't exist.

And this is where Mueller will be destroyed.
 
I suspect Mueller will stick to his promise to keep his comments limited to the 448-page witch hunt report we already know about. If the questioning were allowed to go beyond that, he would be answering some very difficult questions that would likely end up with him being disbarred or prosecuted.

You could see he was scared when he was confronted while going to church (probably begging God to help him get out of this mess he created without going to PRISON).

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2019/04/21/nbc_reporter_confronts_robert_mueller_outside_church_after_easter_service_mueller_makes_no_comment.html

It will probably be about as enlightening as when DemocRATS showed up with fried chicken to make fun of black people. Only the low IQ, TDS nut base will be entertained.

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/450358-mueller-to-testify-in-front-of-house-judiciary-intelligence-committees-next

EDIT: Please go to already-existing thread on this, where leftists have a head start on displaying what complete morons they are.

https://www.politicaljack.com/threads/mueller-to-testify-in-open-session-on-july-17.122478/
We will learn nothing new. Nadler will ask if there is evidence of the President committing a crime. Muller will reply no. The next day Nadler will claim Meuller had his fingers crossed when he answered to the answer is really Yes.
 

Bugsy McGurk

President
We will learn nothing new. Nadler will ask if there is evidence of the President committing a crime. Muller will reply no. The next day Nadler will claim Meuller had his fingers crossed when he answered to the answer is really Yes.
Mueller will certainly not say “no” to that question. His report says to the contrary.
 

JackDallas

Senator
Supporting Member
You should have to repeat second grade for believing the right wing bullshit about Mueller doing anything wrong or that the report did not show clearly 10 examples of obstruction of justice. go to your room.
And you should have to attend the second grade.
 

EatTheRich

President
Speaking of Trump associate convictions, why wasn't Don Jr. indicted? *Trump Tower meeting* anyone? LOLOL
That’s explained in the report. Because
1) it is difficult to establish the monetary value of the help they solicited from Russia
2) it is difficult to prove Don Jr. wasn’t too dumb to know he wasn’t supposed to solicit help from Russia
 

JackDallas

Senator
Supporting Member
The Thinker said:
Speaking of Trump associate convictions, why wasn't Don Jr. indicted? *Trump Tower meeting* anyone? LOLOL

That’s explained in the report. Because
1) it is difficult to establish the monetary value of the help they solicited from Russia
2) it is difficult to prove Don Jr. wasn’t too dumb to know he wasn’t supposed to solicit help from Russia
Translation: Because he didn't do anything wrong; but if I say that they'll toss me out of the clown car.
 

llovejim

Current Champion
lol Tweeting was used as an 'example '

Can you show me where in the report it says Mueller had probable cause to indict a sitting president but because of the DOJ rules they couldn't indict him?

You can't . Doesn't exist.

And this is where Mueller will be destroyed.
can you show me any evidence you even know how to read, especially something as legally complicated as the Mueller Report? If you had read the report, or even read a real newspaper article about it, or watched a real news media report, you would know that Mueller took great care to show the most grievous examples of collusion between the Russians and the Trumpsters who so willingly took meeting with them in secret and did not once refer these contacts and attempt at contacts with foreign agents to the FBI. And he laid down some serious foundations for these obvious acts of collusion to go one step further and be actual crimes - conspiracy against the US. With many examples...and then he gave cogent, clear and legal explanations of why he did not think these obvious examples of collusion had crossed the legal line into being criminal acts of conspiracy. He clearly said there was just not enough evidence to even indict the trump colluders with criminal conspiracy- as shown here from his report, which i have included a link to the PDF-

As set forth in detail in this report, the Special Counsel's investigation established that Russia interfere~ in the 2016 presidential election principally through two operations. First, a Russian entity carried out a social media campaign that favored presidential candidate Donald J. Trump and disparaged presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. Second, a Russian intelligence service conducted computer-intrusion operations against entities, employees, and volunteers working on the Clinton Campaign and then released stolen documents. The investigation also identified numerous links between the Russian government and the Trump Campaign. Although the investigation established that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome, and that the Campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts, the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.

A statement that the investigation did not establish particular facts does not mean there was no evidence of those facts. In evaluating whether evidence about collective action of multiple individuals constituted a crime, we applied the framework of conspiracy law, not the concept of "collusion." In so doing, the Office recognized that the word "collude" was used in communications with the Acting Attorney General confirming certain aspects of the investigation's scope and that the term has frequently been invoked in public reporting about the investigation. But collusion is not a specific offense or theory of liability found in the United States Code, nor is it a term of art in federal criminal law. For those reasons, the Office's focus in analyzing questions of joint criminal liability was on conspiracy as defined in federal law.



BUT- when it came to the obvious examples of obstruction of justice, he just as clearly, cogently, legally laid out these obvious criminal acts of obstruction. AND THE DIFFERENCE IS- when it came to these indictable illegal acts, he never said there was just not enough evidence there to indict trump or his cohorts.....and went on to say this, in regards why he did not recommend an indictment for obstruction of justice in any of the 10 or so examples- and I quote-

Our investigation found multiple acts by the President that were capable of exerting undue influence over law enforcement investigations, including the Russian-interference and obstruction investigations. The incidents were often carried out through one-on-one meetings in which the President sought to use his official power outside of usual channels. These actions ranged from efforts to remove the Special Counsel and to reverse the effect of the Attorney General 's recusal; to the attempted use of official power to limit the scope of the investigation; to direct and indirect contacts with witnesses with the potential to influence their testimony. Viewing the acts collectively can help to illuminate their significance. For example, the President's direction to McGahn to have the Special Counsel removed was followed almost immediately by his direction to Lewandowski to tell the Attorney General to limit the scope of the Russia investigation to prospective election-interference only - a temporal connection that suggests both acts were taken with a related purpose with respect to the investigation.

IV. CONCLUSION Because we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment, we did not draw ultimate conclusions about the President's conduct. The evidence we obtained about the President's actions and intent presents difficult issues that would need to be resolved if we were making a traditional prosecutorial judgment. At the same time, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, we are unable to reach that judgment. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.

https://www.justice.gov/storage/report.pdf
 

JackDallas

Senator
Supporting Member
can you show me any evidence you even know how to read, especially something as legally complicated as the Mueller Report? If you had read the report, or even read a real newspaper article about it, or watched a real news media report, you would know that Mueller took great care to show the most grievous examples of collusion between the Russians and the Trumpsters who so willingly took meeting with them in secret and did not once refer these contacts and attempt at contacts with foreign agents to the FBI. And he laid down some serious foundations for these obvious acts of collusion to go one step further and be actual crimes - conspiracy against the US. With many examples...and then he gave cogent, clear and legal explanations of why he did not think these obvious examples of collusion had crossed the legal line into being criminal acts of conspiracy. He clearly said there was just not enough evidence to even indict the trump colluders with criminal conspiracy- as shown here from his report, which i have included a link to the PDF-

As set forth in detail in this report, the Special Counsel's investigation established that Russia interfere~ in the 2016 presidential election principally through two operations. First, a Russian entity carried out a social media campaign that favored presidential candidate Donald J. Trump and disparaged presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. Second, a Russian intelligence service conducted computer-intrusion operations against entities, employees, and volunteers working on the Clinton Campaign and then released stolen documents. The investigation also identified numerous links between the Russian government and the Trump Campaign. Although the investigation established that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome, and that the Campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts, the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.

A statement that the investigation did not establish particular facts does not mean there was no evidence of those facts. In evaluating whether evidence about collective action of multiple individuals constituted a crime, we applied the framework of conspiracy law, not the concept of "collusion." In so doing, the Office recognized that the word "collude" was used in communications with the Acting Attorney General confirming certain aspects of the investigation's scope and that the term has frequently been invoked in public reporting about the investigation. But collusion is not a specific offense or theory of liability found in the United States Code, nor is it a term of art in federal criminal law. For those reasons, the Office's focus in analyzing questions of joint criminal liability was on conspiracy as defined in federal law.



BUT- when it came to the obvious examples of obstruction of justice, he just as clearly, cogently, legally laid out these obvious criminal acts of obstruction. AND THE DIFFERENCE IS- when it came to these indictable illegal acts, he never said there was just not enough evidence there to indict trump or his cohorts.....and went on to say this, in regards why he did not recommend an indictment for obstruction of justice in any of the 10 or so examples- and I quote-

Our investigation found multiple acts by the President that were capable of exerting undue influence over law enforcement investigations, including the Russian-interference and obstruction investigations. The incidents were often carried out through one-on-one meetings in which the President sought to use his official power outside of usual channels. These actions ranged from efforts to remove the Special Counsel and to reverse the effect of the Attorney General 's recusal; to the attempted use of official power to limit the scope of the investigation; to direct and indirect contacts with witnesses with the potential to influence their testimony. Viewing the acts collectively can help to illuminate their significance. For example, the President's direction to McGahn to have the Special Counsel removed was followed almost immediately by his direction to Lewandowski to tell the Attorney General to limit the scope of the Russia investigation to prospective election-interference only - a temporal connection that suggests both acts were taken with a related purpose with respect to the investigation.

IV. CONCLUSION Because we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment, we did not draw ultimate conclusions about the President's conduct. The evidence we obtained about the President's actions and intent presents difficult issues that would need to be resolved if we were making a traditional prosecutorial judgment. At the same time, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, we are unable to reach that judgment. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.

https://www.justice.gov/storage/report.pdf
You use more words to say nothing than any individual I've ever come across.
 
D

Deleted member 21794

Guest
That’s explained in the report. Because
1) it is difficult to establish the monetary value of the help they solicited from Russia
2) it is difficult to prove Don Jr. wasn’t too dumb to know he wasn’t supposed to solicit help from Russia
LIE.
 

llovejim

Current Champion
You use more words to say nothing than any individual I've ever come across.
you even claiming there was not a complete rebuttal to what fake woman cortez spewed proves you have almost zero reading comprehension. how can you claim quotes from the Mueller Report specifically debunking any claims that Mueller in any way exonerated Trump say "nothing?" You should have said those quotes meant nothing to you because they zoomed way over your head. Why not wait to comment until AFTER you learn to read?
 
D

Deleted member 21794

Guest
you even claiming there was not a complete rebuttal to what fake woman cortez spewed proves you have almost zero reading comprehension. how can you claim quotes from the Mueller Report specifically debunking any claims that Mueller in any way exonerated Trump say "nothing?" You should have said those quotes meant nothing to you because they zoomed way over your head. Why not wait to comment until AFTER you learn to read?
You don't seem to understand. No American, including Donald Trump, need be *exonerated*. Not only are presumed innocent, but a person not prosecuted after a two-year investigation (mostly by fierce political enemies) logically gets an even greater assumption of innocence. This isn't rocket science.

A little more detail to hopefully help you grasp the concept: prosecutors don't exonerate people. Either they prosecute or they don't. I highly suggest you do some reading on this. It will go a long way towards educating you on our legal process.
 
Top