Mueller Report Imminent

[82_VOL_83]

So who is going to run against Pence? Buttigeig?

Biden, he's gone from womanizer and assault waiting to happen to the darling of the dims.

 

[VolStrom]

When Mr Trump leaves in 2024, I will vote socialist. So your kids can support me with their taxes.I hope they have to pay rates like back in the early 70s.

When does Social Security and Medicare run out of money? Asking for a friend.

 

[0nelilreb]

When does Social Security and Medicare run out of money? Asking for a friend.

Well since we all die in 12 years I’m guessing it will run out in 11 years .
Wait Beto said 10 years we all go kaput . Somewhere between 9-11 years

 

[luthervol]

I was beginning to doubt you , I’m glad to see you still working to take first place away from LG . Lol

Battle to the end. I'm in for the long haul.

 

[Purple Tiger]

When does Social Security and Medicare run out of money? Asking for a friend.

Never...as long as someone keeps paying into it. Tell your friend I said that.

 

[McDad]

When does Social Security and Medicare run out of money? Asking for a friend.

Never. The managers of those funds also control the printing presses.

 

[VolStrom]

Never. The managers of those funds also control the printing presses.

Thanks, 72 was worried.

 

[82_VOL_83]

Just remember Luth that President Donald J Trump just may go down as one of the greatest Presidents ever.

My taxes went down this year.
Unemployment is low, low, low.
The economy is doing well.
He is standing up against Abortion, which is one of the worst atrocities in the world.
Obamacare is dead with no help from the RINOs.
He is appointing Conservative Judges to the courts. Bigly!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
He supports our Military and Police.
He allowed our military to do what they do best without being handcuffed and kicked ISIS's butt.
He is fighting against illegal immigration with little help from the RINOs.
He is starting to get some of the wall built with no help from the RINOs and Sorry DIMs.
He takes on the Liberal Media unlike any other Republican in the past.
He calls it like he sees it unapologetically.
He may just yet get a deal with North Korea. Time will tell and I would not bet against him.
He is a Pitbull that fights for the change I want to see.

I don't think there was one other cadidate running that could have this much success.

Winning

 

[Weezer]

I viewed it similarly to the obstruction findings, only Trump's much more guilty based on intent.

Still living on that island.

 

[Franklin Pierce]

The file reveals that the FBI this year lost its notes of a 2015 meeting with the Intelligence Community Inspector General on an unspecified Clinton-linked topic, and that Clinton's aides at one point 'lost most of' the emails related to her private server as she transitioned out of the State Department.

 

[Orangeslice13]

The file reveals that the FBI this year lost its notes of a 2015 meeting with the Intelligence Community Inspector General on an unspecified Clinton-linked topic, and that Clinton's aides at one point 'lost most of' the emails related to her private server as she transitioned out of the State Department.

Should those who “lost” notes be investigated for obstruction?

 

[hUTch2002]

It is not a lie that Trump heavily and suspiciously favors pro-Russian policy. It is not a lie that he and his campaign had over 250 contacts with Russia. It is not a lie that Russia contrived a strategy to help Trump win. It is not a lie that Trump has blocked and/or slow-walked Russian sanctions authorized by Congress. It is not a lie that Trump keeps touting what Putin says (we did not interfere, no interest in Venezuela, etc.). It is not a lie that Trump refuses to acknowledge Russian interference in the election. It is not a lie his campaign changed the GOP platform to a pro-Russian stance on Ukraine. It is not a lie that his campaign gave the Russians polling data. It is not a lie that that the Trump campaign recevied advance word of leaks of stolen emails by the Russians.


And then we get to obstruction.

It is not a lie that Trump fired Comey because Comey would not block the investigation into Flynn and pledge loyalty to Trump. It is not a lie that Trump repeatedly fabricated reasons to fire Mueller. It is not a lie that Trump told his counsel get Mueller fired -- and then asked counsel to lie and say he had not done so. It is not a lie that Trump told the Russians that he had taken steps to thwart the investigation.


Pesky facts, sir. Taken singularly they are bad enough. Taken together they show a corrupt President who should be imprisoned. And it will forever be a stain on the reputation of the GOP that they did not have the stones to do what is right here.

Speaking of pesky facts...
Steele's stunning pre-FISA confession: Informant needed to air Trump dirt before election

 

[ajvol01]

When does Social Security and Medicare run out of money? Asking for a friend.

Medicare is done in 2026.

With my luck Social Security will be done in 2035

 

[hUTch2002]

Can you think of any other event that had all the Dems in Congress so easily go full potato? The message from the DNC headquarters on a daily basis is swallowed and regurgitated daily from every Democrat in DC. And the media swallows and pukes up the same message. It’s fffffing obvious and they think we are to stupid to see it. Well, some folks on this board have swallowed it even though their throat was full but they still keep trying to force it down.

True but they have a lot of practice swallowing.

 

[Franklin Pierce]

Newly released text messages between former FBI agent Peter Strzok and former FBI lawyer Lisa Page show them questioning the origin of various stories they were seeing in the news.

Senate Homeland Security Committee Chairman Ron Johnson, R-Wis., and Finance Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, sent a letter to Intelligence Community Inspector General Michael K. Atkinson to find out if he’s launched a probe “into these apparent leaks.” They wrote:

​

These texts and emails raise a number of serious questions and concerns. For example, who are the ‘sisters’ and what does it mean to say that the ‘sisters have [been] leaking like mad’? What are they worried about, and what are they kicking into ‘overdrive’? Which ‘agency’ is he referring to and why does Strzok believe the referenced news article highlights that ‘agency as [a] source of some of the leaks’?​

​

On December 16, 2016, Strzok sent a text to Page: “I think our sisters have begun leaking like mad. Scorned and worried and political, they’re kicking into overdrive.” “Our sisters” is a reference to the CIA, which is the sister agency to the FBI. John Brennan was the CIA Director at the time.

On April 13, 2017, Strzok sent an email to members of his counterintelligence team which said, “I’m beginning to think the agency got information a lot earlier than we thought. They haven’t shared it completely with us. They’re leaking it. Might explain all these weird seemingly incorrect leads all these media people have.”

Newly Released Strzok Texts, Emails Suggest CIA Leaked False Information About Trump Campaign

 

[hUTch2002]

Hundreds of former Justice officials assert Trump would be facing felony charges if he were not President - CNNPolitics
Hundreds of former Justice Department officials said in an open letter released Monday that President Donald Trump would be facing multiple felony charges for obstruction of justice stemming from the Russia investigation if he were not President.
"We believe strongly that, but for the OLC memo, the overwhelming weight of professional judgment would come down in favor of prosecution for the conduct outlined in the Mueller Report,"

That doesn't really sound like complete exoneration.

Then read this out loud because it certainly does.
Steele's stunning pre-FISA confession: Informant needed to air Trump dirt before election

 

[Matt2496]

Trump never fired McGahn for refusing to comply. McGahn never resigned so he obviously wasn't being seriously pressured into directing the DAG to fire Mueller.

Trump just saying stupid crap (as usual) really is neither criminal nor impeachable.

 

[hjeagle1vol]

 

[hjeagle1vol]

[VIDEO=]

 

[hjeagle1vol]

[VIDEO=]

 

[hUTch2002]

No. His efforts to fire Mueller, his efforts to have Sessions direct Mueller not to investigate the president after Sessions recused, and his conduct related to Manafort.

A reasonable inference can be made that Trump’s conduct influenced Manafort’s calculus when determining whether to lie about his interactions with Kilimnik, which just happens to be the most suspicious behavior covered in Volume I.

All of the above instances meet the elements of obstruction, IMO. (The success or failure of an obstructive act does not appear to be an element under the federal statutes. This is based on the analysis performed by Mueller and the discussion of obstruction statutes in, I think, Section A of Volume II. I’ll concede that the reasonableness of this inference is a fair point of disagreement, but IMO, its not material to whether the facts meet the elements of the crime. I mention it only because it does go to the severity of the offense.)

I’m not even considering Comey. I don’t think the authority to fire Comey is a viable defense, I just think there’s too much contradicting evidence of intent, with respect to the Comey firing. I’m not sure it’s even in my second tier of offenses. It might be obstruction, but it’s too much of a close call in light of other, better charges.

The firing of Comey is factually significant because it’s the genesis of the obstruction investigation. Shortly thereafter, Trump became aware that he was being personally investigated, McGahn told him he may have exposure, and that’s when his efforts to assert control over the investigation became more frenetic. IMO, these events are material to a shift in intent.

And when the evidence shows this investigation should never have been started what then? It’s all coming out so there’s no reason to even argue about your assertions of obstruction.

 

[Orange_Crush]

And when the evidence shows this investigation should never have been started what then? It’s all coming out so there’s no reason to even argue about your assertions of obstruction.

Operation Crossfire Boomerang will turn out to be crippling, just not to Trump. As far as Trump and his side, the gloves are off and the info is being released for public consumption. Hell is coming.

 

[RockyTop85]

The argument wasnt that Trump didnt fire Mueller and is therefore innocent. The argument is Trump didnt fire anybody who refused. They have that right and responsibility and acted correctly so a crime didnt happen.

Was Trump told by his AGs that it would be obstruction in your presumed facts? That could definitely change Trumps stance. If he didnt know and didnt understand he would be breaking the law. Again no way the president can know the legality of every one of his actions and he needs people to tell him.
Do you really think the conversation went something like:

Dt: fire him.

Ag: no. It's against the law to even suggest that, you need to stop. Here are the sections you are violating.

Dt:fire him

Ag: no it's illegal to even suggest that. Stop.

Dt:fire him.

Ag: *resigns*
I get he isnt the sharpest light bulb in the box. But I doubt you are saying he is that dumb?

I am willing to bet they gave him more generic answers of no. And left it there until Trump pushed the matter.

As far as talking to people about breaking the law, pretty much everyday. Speed, jaywalk, joke with friends about thievery, murder, mayhem. Even at the office I spend a good chunk of my time figuring out ways past/thru/around any number of laws, building codes, and so forth. Heck I can even call up the city and ask about certain options without breaking a law.

There is a difference in doing and talking. Even if the talking is the crime, it's part of the reason it's a protected right. Being able to figure out what is allowed and isnt is important to any modern society.

I still don’t think your first paragraph is correct. Attempts and endeavors are covered under these statutes. The pictures below show the relevant discussion of the statutes from the report. The idea that obstruction reaches “all corrupt conduct capable of producing...” seems like a very broad definition that might not be shared by all courts, but the other two pages are harder to work around.

By “presumed facts” I’m referring to the facts stated in the report. I’m presuming that to be true until it’s refuted by someone reliable.

Honestly, my recollection of the section on what Trump was told in this specific instance is that I was not satisfied by what the report said about what he was told. It seemed to lead the reader to the conclusion that he was told he should direct issues with the investigation to his personal attorney because McGahn felt he had become a witness to a potential crime (firing of Comey), but it did not say this explicitly. It may be that the notes they had were not sufficient to find more and the witnesses did not remember.

Ironically, the report does detail a number of conversations somewhat similar to the example you give here, though. At every turn he is counseled by people like Bannon, McGahn, Chris Cristy, and likely his own lawyers, to leave it alone.

 

[volfanjustin]

I will wager no one of any real significance will be indicted, dems and higher ups on the inside don't get indicted.

 

[RockyTop85]

And when the evidence shows this investigation should never have been started what then? It’s all coming out so there’s no reason to even argue about your assertions of obstruction.

If there was some illegality involved in the genesis of the investigation, it should be turned over to prosecutors who should do what prosecutors do: determine whether prosecution of the offense would serve the public interest.

That doesn’t put the toothpaste back in the tube.