Mueller Report Imminent

[37L1]

Nadler: Substantial evidence President Trump 'guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors' contained in Mueller report

So, what are they waiting for? Didn't they take a vote just last week? How did that do?

 

[0nelilreb]

So, what are they waiting for? Didn't they take a vote just last week? How did that do?

The left should probably cut Pelosi some slack ( can’t believe I just said that ) she’s one of the only ones keeping them in the election in 2020 . She’s trying to explain to them that feelings aren’t the same thing as proof when you try to impeach a president and don’t control the senate .

 

[lawgator1]

The left should probably cut Pelosi some slack ( can’t believe I just said that ) she’s one of the only ones keeping them in the election in 2020 . She’s trying to explain to them that feelings aren’t the same thing as proof when you try to impeach a president and don’t control the senate .

The problem isn't that there aren't enough Republicans in the Senate that think he should be impeached. The problem is that too many of them are afraid of Trump's base to vote their conscience.

 

[0nelilreb]

The problem isn't that there aren't enough Republicans in the Senate that think he should be impeached. The problem is that too many of them are afraid of Trump's base to vote their conscience.

You’ve been listening to CNN and MSNBC again .

 

[Jxn Vol]

The problem isn't that there aren't enough Republicans in the Senate that think he should be impeached. The problem is that too many of them are afraid of Trump's base to vote their conscience.

Or maybe they know the dems are full of more chit than a Christmas turkey. And their constituents are in tune to this fact also.

 

[NorthDallas40]

Nadler: Substantial evidence President Trump 'guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors' contained in Mueller report

"The [Mueller] report presents very substantial evidence that the president is guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors and we have to present — or let Mueller present those facts to the American people and then see where we go from there," he said.

Phat Basterd is already distancing himself from the current inquisition. LMAO!

 

[lawgator1]

Wednesday is a golden opportunity for the Dems to put on video Mueller either stating, or agreeing with them as they explain, specific and devastating facts about Trump, i.e. that he told people to lie, to fire others, all in a panicked effort to protect himself.

They will almost certainly screw it up.

 

[Jxn Vol]

It’s a golden opportunity to expose fisa abuse and other illegal activities.

But I like the fact that LG is already projecting defeat.

 

[NorthDallas40]

Wednesday is a golden opportunity for the Dems to put on video Mueller either stating, or agreeing with them as they explain, specific and devastating facts about Trump, i.e. that he told people to lie, to fire others, all in a panicked effort to protect himself.

They will almost certainly screw it up.

Looks like the Dim talking points are out to already down play the Muell’s testimony before he even takes the stage.

 

[IPleadInsanity]

Wednesday is a golden opportunity for the Dems to put on video Mueller either stating, or agreeing with them as they explain, specific and devastating facts about Trump, i.e. that he told people to lie, to fire others, all in a panicked effort to protect himself.

They will almost certainly screw it up.

I am looking forward to him explaining how 200 hundred liberal leaning hand picked attorneys could not come up with a single charge after 2 years of fact finding and interviews with over 500 people. They forced millions of dollars in fees to be paid by those interviewed and were themselves paid millions of dollars. I am curious who he thinks should pay that cost, American taxpayers or the Democratic Party?

 

[lawgator1]

I am looking forward to him explaining how 200 hundred liberal leaning hand picked attorneys could not come up with a single charge after 2 years of fact finding and interviews with over 500 people. They forced millions of dollars in fees to be paid by those interviewed and were themselves paid millions of dollars. I am curious who he thinks should pay that cost, American taxpayers or the Democratic Party?

For one thing, they are not allowed to.

The question for Mueller is simple: If he were not a sitting POTUS at the time, would you have charged him?

The answer is most assuredly yes.

 

[NorthDallas40]

For one thing, they are not allowed to.

The question for Mueller is simple: If he were not a sitting POTUS at the time, would you have charged him?

The answer is most assuredly yes.

If asked and answered as you say I’d immediately follow up with how that conflicts with both AG Barr’s statement as well as his own PR individual saying they were not in conflict. You’re setting yourself up for disappointment again. If asked that he will reply he isn’t going to answer hypotheticals.

 

[hog88]

For one thing, they are not allowed to.

The question for Mueller is simple: If he were not a sitting POTUS at the time, would you have charged him?

The answer is most assuredly yes.

That's a silly question because if he wasn't a sitting POTUS the Muell wouldn't have been investigating him.

 

[Franklin Pierce]

Justice Dept. Watchdog Has Evidence Comey Probed Trump, on the Sly

It is one of the most enduring and consequential mysteries of the Trump-Russia investigation: Why did former FBI Director James Comey refuse to say publicly what he was telling President Trump in private -- that Trump was not the target of an ongoing probe?

That refusal ignited a chain of events that has consumed Washington for more than two years – including Comey’s firing by Trump, the appointment of Special Counsel Robert Mueller, and ongoing claims that Trump obstructed justice.

Now an answer is emerging. Sources tell RealClearInvestigations that Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz will soon file a report with evidence indicating that Comey was misleading the president. Even as he repeatedly assured Trump that he was not a target, the former director was secretly trying to build a conspiracy case against the president, while at times acting as an investigative agent.

Two U.S. officials briefed on the inspector general’s investigation of possible FBI misconduct said Comey was essentially “running a covert operation against” the president, starting with a private “defensive briefing” he gave Trump just weeks before his inauguration. They said Horowitz has examined high-level FBI text messages and other communications indicating Comey was actually conducting a “counterintelligence assessment” of Trump during that January 2017 meeting in New York.

In addition to adding notes of his meetings and phone calls with Trump to the official FBI case file, Comey had an agent inside the White House who reported back to FBI headquarters about Trump and his aides, according to other officials familiar with the matter.

Although Comey took many actions on his own, he was not working in isolation. One focus of Horowitz’s inquiry is the private Jan. 6, 2017, briefing Comey gave the president-elect in New York about material in the Democratic-commissioned dossier compiled by ex-British intelligence officer Christopher Steele. Reports of that meeting were used days later by BuzzFeed, CNN and other outlets as a news hook for reporting on the dossier’s lascivious and unsubstantiated claims.

Comey’s meeting with Trump took place one day after the FBI director met in the Oval Office with President Obama and Vice President Joe Biden to discuss how to brief Trump — a meeting attended by National Security Adviser Susan Rice, Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson, Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates and National Intelligence Director James Clapper, who would soon go to work for CNN.

In his recently published memoir, “A Higher Loyalty,” Comey denied having "a counterintelligence case file open on [Trump],” though he qualified the denial by adding this was true only in the “literal” sense. He also twice denied investigating Trump, under oath, in congressional testimony.

But, former FBI counterintelligence agent and lawyer Mark Wauck said, the FBI lacked legal grounds to treat Trump as a suspect. “They had no probable cause against Trump himself for ‘collusion’ or espionage,” he said. “They were scrambling to come up with anything to hang a hat on, but had found nothing.”

What remains unclear is why Comey would take such extraordinary steps against a sitting president. The Mueller report concluded there was no basis for the Trump-Russia collusion conspiracy theories. Comey himself was an early skeptic of the Steele dossier -- the opposition research memos paid for by Hillary Clinton’s campaign that were the road map of collusion theories – which he dismissed as “salacious and unverified.”

Justice Dept. Watchdog Has Evidence Comey Probed Trump, on the Sly | RealClearInvestigations

 

[lawgator1]

If asked and answered as you say I’d immediately follow up with how that conflicts with both AG Barr’s statement as well as his own PR individual saying they were not in conflict. You’re setting yourself up for disappointment again. If asked that he will reply he isn’t going to answer hypotheticals.

The answer to that point is quite simple: Barr is a toadie, hired to protect Trump, not be the Attorney General of the US of A.

 

[NorthDallas40]

The answer to that point is quite simple: Barr is a toadie, hired to protect Trump, not be the Attorney General of the US of A.

LMAO! Your TDS is in full bloom this morning for sure

 

[Franklin Pierce]

MSNBC contributor Joyce Vance makes false claim about Mueller testimony not airing on Fox News, deletes tweet after criticism

MSNBC contributor Joyce Vance falsely claimed on Sunday that Fox News would not air ex-Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s highly anticipated congressional testimony in an apparent attempt to mislead her Twitter followers.

Vance chalked it up to “irony” for hours after being confronted with her misstatement, before finally deleting the inaccurate message.

 

[lawgator1]

MSNBC contributor Joyce Vance makes false claim about Mueller testimony not airing on Fox News, deletes tweet after criticism

MSNBC contributor Joyce Vance falsely claimed on Sunday that Fox News would not air ex-Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s highly anticipated congressional testimony in an apparent attempt to mislead her Twitter followers.

Vance chalked it up to “irony” for hours after being confronted with her misstatement, before finally deleting the inaccurate message.

I don't particularly like her, but good for her for deleting the mistaken info.

 

[Orange_Vol1321]

Wednesday is a golden opportunity for the Dems to put on video Mueller either stating, or agreeing with them as they explain, specific and devastating facts about Trump, i.e. that he told people to lie, to fire others, all in a panicked effort to protect himself.

They will almost certainly screw it up.

Just like how he sent some to prison, It's a perjury trap waiting for Mueller. If I was him I wouldn't show up. There's nothing good can come out of it.

 

[IPleadInsanity]

For one thing, they are not allowed to.

The question for Mueller is simple: If he were not a sitting POTUS at the time, would you have charged him?

The answer is most assuredly yes.

In that case I agree, I would have charged him with "fighting back against an obvious conspiracy". I would also charge the majority of the members of the Democratic Party with trying to boondoggle the American people. No one is fooled, let's move on! Send the bill for all of this to the DNC.

 

[lawgator1]

Just like how he sent some to prison, It's a perjury trap waiting for Mueller. If I was him I wouldn't show up. There's nothing good can come out of it.

Your worry is that he will say f it, drop the charade, and tell the truth about the scumbg criminal currently in the WH.

 

[IPleadInsanity]

Your worry is that he will say f it, drop the charade, and tell the truth about the scumbg criminal currently in the WH.

The mysterious missing TRUTH that 2 years of investigation could not uncover but you are still hoping for. The ones that CNN/ Democrats promised. I would be more than a little pissed.

 

[lawgator1]

The mysterious missing TRUTH that 2 years of investigation could not uncover but you are still hoping for. The ones that CNN/ Democrats promised. I would be more than a little pissed.

I think he might say there was collusion but no evidence of an agreed to conspiracy, and that there was definitely obstruction that would ordinarily be treated as criminal but for his office.

That's the truth, too.

 

[IPleadInsanity]

Your worry is that he will say f it, drop the charade, and tell the truth about the scumbg criminal currently in the WH.

The mysterious missing TRUTH that 2 years of investigation could not uncover but you are still hoping for. The ones that CNN/ Democrats promised. I would be more than a little pissed.

The answer to that point is quite simple: Barr is a toadie, hired to protect Trump, not be the Attorney General of the US of A.

Thats an opinion not fact. He was highly respected as a former AG before taking this position. We all know there is no person the Democrats would accept because you need the issue for the election. Paint the opposition as the devil and then promise to get rid of him. Been going on since the dawn of time.

 

[IPleadInsanity]

I think he might say there was collusion but no evidence of an agreed to conspiracy, and that there was definitely obstruction that would ordinarily be treated as criminal but for his office.

That's the truth, too.

If you leave out the part where he was being accused and investigated for a crime that did not exist and the investigators knew that going in. They were obstructing the presidency, is that not a crime?