Mueller Report Imminent

#8,828
#8,828
Weezer said:
Remind me of the outcome of Mueller's Report again? No collusion. Arguments of possible obstruction. What was so important about it again?

We had a Democrat as POTUS who said Russia was not a problem. Then Hillary loses the election and all of a sudden Russia is a problem. So of course let's blame Trump for Obama's inaction. Makes perfect sense.
Click to expand...

This right here x100,000. Winner Winner of the Day's Chicken Dinner.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Orange_Vol1321, CagleMtnVol, dezul and 2 others
#8,829
#8,829
TheDeeble said:
What threw my "I'm suspicious of this accusation" flag up, was that it was right after the election was when the "Trump colluded with the Russians to defeat Hillary" narrative started. No investigation, no report, but somehow the D party and the MSM all said it together. It's like everything was backwards. They somehow divined the end result of a multi year investigation before any investigation ever happened. The order of events was backwards. First what happens is you notice election irregularities. So then you do an investigation into election irregularities to see what happened. Then you find you think there was outside influence. Then you you start narrowing down details into what happened and who was involved.

They skipped the entire investigation, made their accusations following the election, then ran an investigation to prove that accusation.

It's like The D party and the MSM are playing a game of CLUE and made their accusation before the board was opened up and the cards dealt out.
Click to expand...

It was an obvious hoax from the beginning that was fueled by the media complex along with anonymous sources and felonious leakers.

A lot of people took the bait. Sad!!!
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#8,833
#8,833
DC_Vol said:
It was an obvious hoax from the beginning that was fueled by the media complex along with anonymous sources and felonious leakers.

A lot of people took the bait. Sad!!!
Click to expand...
Their party wants blood now because of what they've heard on CNN, MSNBC, or from idiots like Schiff etc. for the past three years. Going to get ugly for them just like Pelosi being chanted over this weekend.
 
#8,834
#8,834
  • Like
Reactions: tennvols77, ajvol01 and Orange_Vol1321
#8,836
#8,836
NorthDallas40 said:
Why edit it at all then? Makes no sense and just adds confusion and uncertainty.
Click to expand...
Brevity? Hard for me to say since that’s obviously not a quality I value. They cut out a lot of filler words, as well.

The report says there’s no way to prove several elements of obstruction related to this incident. I’m not sure why they would need to include this supposedly exculpatory language that makes no difference to that analysis. Belt and suspenders approach?

So why do these pundits make a big deal out of it? Seems uninformed at best. Dishonest at worst.
 
#8,839
#8,839
@NorthDallas40

There’s also nothing beyond the pale sleazy about just that voicemail. It’s somewhat embarrassing to have out in the public, but I see it as one attorney asking another attorney to, as a matter of professional courtesy, provide him with a heads up if anything came out of the proffer that would hurt his client. Some lawyers see this much the way people view speeding and it happens often.

The worst fact in it is that Trump’s attorney would know that literally nothing said in a proffer could be disclosed to the attorney of an adverse party without breaching confidences. So the statement that he didn’t want confidential info was strictly window dressing.

That said, some attorneys will actually reveal something between “hey man, you need to have your head on a swivel” and “off the record, my client said x,y,z.” Neither is allowed but some attorneys rationalize it if their parties don’t have adverse interests. Etiquette is that, typically, whatever they choose to tell or not tell and you have to respect that decision.

What he did that was offensive, but likely not criminal, was when Flynn’s attorney calls back and says “no,” he then gets mad and makes an implied threat. Now, that may have been in response to something Flynn’s lawyer said.

There are attorneys who do not see these “minor” breaches of confidence, for the purpose of rapport building, as ethical. Others do not see it as unethical and no lawyer likes being called unethical. It can lead to heated exchanges.

Asking the question in this way keeps it from being an enticement to breach ethics, but may yield multiple pieces of info for Trump’s attorney: if the other attorney gives any answer, their interests probably aren’t totally adverse. If he refuses to answer then either he’s a straight arrow, or his client just took a big dump on your client. Basically it doesn’t give you much to go on but some attorneys like having not much to go on better than nothing to go on.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NorthDallas40
#8,840
#8,840
RockyTop85 said:
@NorthDallas40

There’s also nothing beyond the pale sleazy about just that voicemail. It’s somewhat embarrassing to have out in the public, but I see it as one attorney asking another attorney to, as a matter of professional courtesy, provide him with a heads up if anything came out of the proffer that would hurt his client. Some lawyers see this much the way people view speeding and it happens often.

The worst fact in it is that Trump’s attorney would know that literally nothing said in a proffer could be disclosed to the attorney of an adverse party without breaching confidences. So the statement that he didn’t want confidential info was strictly window dressing.

That said, some attorneys will actually reveal something between “hey man, you need to have your head on a swivel” and “off the record, my client said x,y,z.” Neither is allowed but some attorneys rationalize it if their parties don’t have adverse interests. Etiquette is that, typically, whatever they choose to tell or not tell and you have to respect that decision.

What he did that was offensive, but likely not criminal, was when Flynn’s attorney calls back and says “no,” he then gets mad and makes an implied threat. Now, that may have been in response to something Flynn’s lawyer said.

There are attorneys who do not see these “minor” breaches of confidence, for the purpose of rapport building, as ethical. Others do not see it as unethical and no lawyer likes being called unethical. It can lead to heated exchanges.

Asking the question in this way keeps it from being an enticement to breach ethics, but may yield multiple pieces of info for Trump’s attorney: if the other attorney gives any answer, their interests probably aren’t totally adverse. If he refuses to answer then either he’s a straight arrow, or his client just took a big dump on your client. Basically it doesn’t give you much to go on but some attorneys like having not much to go on better than nothing to go on.
Click to expand...
Ok thanks for the breakdown Rocky. I believe I hear your message, the deleted sections are moot as the existence of the conversation in the first place is the more fundamental issue.
 
#8,845
#8,845
RockyTop85 said:
Brevity? Hard for me to say since that’s obviously not a quality I value. They cut out a lot of filler words, as well.

The report says there’s no way to prove several elements of obstruction related to this incident. I’m not sure why they would need to include this supposedly exculpatory language that makes no difference to that analysis. Belt and suspenders approach?

So why do these pundits make a big deal out of it? Seems uninformed at best. Dishonest at worst.
Click to expand...

The question is, what else did they conveniently leave out of the report?
 
  • Like
Reactions: tennvols77 and AM64
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top