███████████ Mueller Investigation Results Thread ███████████

[Rightguide]

So, you find it humorous that the DOJ takes years to collect information before charging someone with a crime?

You know, like the 3 years they've spent investigating Trump with still no criminal charge even though the "evidence" is supposedly right there in the public spotlight.

Perhaps, the email controversy is something that takes even more time. Because you know, secret email server, deleted emails, administrative obfuscation, contemptible and/or criminal FBI directors, partisan sycophants who are willing to fabricate and/or conceal evidence...

Maybe we should follow a new plan; charge 'em all without evidence and let due process and the presumption of innocence go to hell.

Or the ten years or so it took to reopen the Manafort case.

 

[HisArpy]

Source citation? And include where it's in the FBI director's job to release FBI information through a non-FBI friend. You might dance around the question of why he didn't release it directly in his own name.

It's true, none of the information Comey released was classified at the time he released it. The released information was later upgraded to "Confidential" and Comey redacted the actual classified portions of his notes prior to leaking them to his friend.

 

[Rightguide]

I don't think there is a current active investigation going on. There was a DOJ IG report from the summer that looked into the probe (it was the same one that outed the FBI couple and their text messages) and stated that they found some secret emails but nothing on the scope that was claimed or any intentional wrong doing.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blog...od-reason-to-complain/?utm_term=.619b5d697f7f

the actual report

Read Gregg Jarrett's book. It's all in there moutains of footnotes, legal cites, and explanations of the violations and applicable laws violated. It's been a #1 bestseller on the NYT's list for months:

https://www.amazon.com/Russia-Hoax-Illicit-Hillary-Clinton/dp/0062872745/r

 

[HisArpy]

Or the ten years or so it took to reopen the Manafort case.

Mueller indicted Manafort because:

1. He'd been stymied by the DOJ at the time of his original investigation and didn't like it.

2. Once he became the special prosecutor, he could. And no one could stop him this time.

 

[Rightguide]

Mueller indicted Manafort because:

1. He'd been stymied by the DOJ at the time of his original investigation and didn't like it.

2. Once he became the special prosecutor, he could. And no one could stop him this time.

Sessions having recused himself, I think Mueller had to have had Rosenstein's blessing because all tax prosecutions come under the purview of the Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General for the Tax Division of the DOJ.

 

[DeluxAuto]

Check my thread titles, you'll find them. I'm pressed for time right now.

How about now?

 

[about_average]

So, you find it humorous that the DOJ takes years to collect information before charging someone with a crime?

You know, like the 3 years they've spent investigating Trump with still no criminal charge even though the "evidence" is supposedly right there in the public spotlight.

Perhaps, the email controversy is something that takes even more time. Because you know, secret email server, deleted emails, administrative obfuscation, contemptible and/or criminal FBI directors, partisan sycophants who are willing to fabricate and/or conceal evidence...

Maybe we should follow a new plan; charge 'em all without evidence and let due process and the presumption of innocence go to hell.

What is humorous is that the DOJ and congress has been investigating Clinton way longer than the Russia investigation has been going on and there have been no charges filed, "even though the "evidence" is supposedly right there in the public spotlight."

Why isn't she in jail? Or at least charged?
After all it took less than 18 months for Mueller to bring charges against over 30 people, including at least 4 Trump people.

 

[cowslinger64]

Read Gregg Jarrett's book. It's all in there moutains of footnotes, legal cites, and explanations of the violations and applicable laws violated. It's been a #1 bestseller on the NYT's list for months:

https://www.amazon.com/Russia-Hoax-Illicit-Hillary-Clinton/dp/0062872745/r

Snip:


Gregg Jarrett
Born Gregory Walter Jarrett
April 7, 1955 (age 63)
Los Angeles, California, U.S.
Occupation News anchor Fox News Channel, Defense attorney
Spouse(s) Catherine Kennedy Anderson (1993–present)
Gregory Walter "Gregg" Jarrett (born April 7, 1955) is an American news anchor, author, and attorney. He joined the Fox News Channel in November 2002


Here is Greg Jarrett

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f3/Tin_foil_hat_2.jpg

 

[HisArpy]

What is humorous is that the DOJ and congress has been investigating Clinton way longer than the Russia investigation has been going on and there have been no charges filed, "even though the "evidence" is supposedly right there in the public spotlight."

Well, that administrative obfuscation I mentioned could have something to do with this. But, good news, they're taking another look at it.

Why isn't she in jail? Or at least charged?

See infra

After all it took less than 18 months for Mueller to bring charges against over 30 people, including at least 4 Trump people.

18 months to indict 30 people. Only 4 of whom are American's. 3 of whom pleaded guilty to PROCESS OFFENSES and not "collusion". And 1 who was found guilty of financial crimes having NOTHING TO DO WITH the "Russia investigation". And the remaining 26 who are supposedly Russian citizens and who will never go to trial if they even exist. And then there's the fact that even if they DO exist, the 1st Amendment protects them and what they did through advocating and advertising.

At some point you have to realize you've been played.

 

[HisArpy]

How about now?

What about now?

You having a cow?

 

[cowslinger64]

18 months to indict 30 people. Only 4 of whom are American's. 3 of whom pleaded guilty to PROCESS OFFENSES and not "collusion". And 1 who was found guilty of financial crimes having NOTHING TO DO WITH the "Russia investigation". And the remaining 26 who are supposedly Russian citizens and who will never go to trial if they even exist. And then there's the fact that even if they DO exist, the 1st Amendment protects them and what they did through advocating and advertising.

At some point you have to realize you've been played.

Let the investigation continue til it's conclusion without ANY interference from trump.

Surely even you can see that he's obstructing it with his remarks and actions.


IMO, there is NO WAY POSSIBLE they have nothing on him... but in the event Mueller has found nothing, so be it. And if anyone else is found guilty, so be it.

As of now, the thoughts from the trumptards are conjecture..

 

[HisArpy]

Let the investigation continue til it's conclusion without ANY interference from trump.

Surely even you can see that he's obstructing it with his remarks and actions.


IMO, there is NO WAY POSSIBLE they have nothing on him... but in the event Mueller has found nothing, so be it. And if anyone else is found guilty, so be it.

As of now, the thoughts from the trumptards are conjecture..

So, Trump saying he's innocent and the investigation is a witch hunt is "obstruction" now?

Wow, apparently it's not only the 1st, 2nd, and 4th Amendments the Progressives want to repeal, it's also the 5th as well.

As for conjecture; how is it that "in your opinion he's already guilty of something and they only need to find the evidence" not conjecture. Worse, it's also inquisition level thinking.

 

[cowslinger64]

So, Trump saying he's innocent and the investigation is a witch hunt is "obstruction" now?

Wow, apparently it's not only the 1st, 2nd, and 4th Amendments the Progressives want to repeal, it's also the 5th as well.

As for conjecture; how is it that "in your opinion he's already guilty of something and they only need to find the evidence" not conjecture. Worse, it's also inquisition level thinking.

You need to read some of his “sayings”..as someone currently being investigated and someone with the power to affect the investigation, yes it could be obstructing to anyone except those blindly partisan hacks like yourself...

My opinion is based on an investigation being finished..not based on stupidity.

 

[Rightguide]

What is humorous is that the DOJ and congress has been investigating Clinton way longer than the Russia investigation has been going on and there have been no charges filed, "even though the "evidence" is supposedly right there in the public spotlight."

Why isn't she in jail? Or at least charged?
After all it took less than 18 months for Mueller to bring charges against over 30 people, including at least 4 Trump people.

Get a fucking clue. It has been established there was a clear conspiracy in the DOJ and the FBI to exonerate Hillary Clinton of her crimes. James Comey had already composed his letter of exoneration of Clinton before she was even interviewed by the FBI. The DOJ gave immunity to all of the principle offenders on her staff. Read Gregg Jarrett's book, it's all in there and it is all well documented.

Meanwhile for your edification, here is the definitive timeline on Hillary Clinton established by Sharyl Attkisson:

https://sharylattkisson.com/2016/11/06/hillary-clintons-email-the-definitive-timeline/

Here is the definitive on Obama Era Surveillance Timeline. You can start at the 2013 level and work your way forward:
https://sharylattkisson.com/2017/12/05/obama-era-surveillance-timeline/

 

[Kirkrapine]

Get a fucking clue. It has been established there was a clear conspiracy in the DOJ and the FBI to exonerate Hillary Clinton of her crimes.

It was not a conspiracy; they gave it up because there was no there there.

 

[Adre]

Get a fucking clue. It has been established there was a clear conspiracy in the DOJ and the FBI to exonerate Hillary Clinton of her crimes.

Lock her up (with Ivanka)!!!

 

[Rightguide]

It was not a conspiracy; they gave it up because there was no there there.

You're full of shit. When Strzok said "there is no there there," he was referring to Russian collusion in the Trump Campaign, you dumb son of a bitch.

 

[DeluxAuto]

Hey, Rightguide. Are you still unable to find those many threads on the subject or are you too embarrassed to relink them here?

 

[IrezumiKiss]

You're full of shit. When Strzok said "there is no there there," he was referring to Russian collusion in the Trump Campaign, you dumb son of a bitch.

Hey, Rightguide. Are you still unable to find those many threads on the subject or are you too embarrassed to relink them here?

https://media.giphy.com/media/ToMjGpz81S7usvTIM8w/giphy.gif

I sense another "Ooooops! I forgot I have a breakfast date with my distant third cousin at Denny's, no time, gotta go" moment coming up.

http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lxpj6grFIe1qcaomb.gif

 

[Kirkrapine]

You're full of shit. When Strzok said "there is no there there," he was referring to Russian collusion in the Trump Campaign, you dumb son of a bitch.

On July 5, 2016, FBI director James Comey issued a statement that said that Clinton's use of the server was 'careless', but that no criminal charges had been recommended:[185]

Comey said that the FBI could not find a case in the past that would support bringing criminal charges based upon the facts. The bureau did not find clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information or vast quantities of materials, or indications of disloyalty to the U.S. or efforts to obstruct justice.

More or less torpedoing the idea that blanket punishments should be applied severely and across all avenues of life.

No there there. It's that simple.

 

[DeluxAuto]

https://media.giphy.com/media/ToMjGpz81S7usvTIM8w/giphy.gif

I sense another "Ooooops! I forgot I have a breakfast date with my distant third cousin at Denny's, no time, gotta go" moment coming up.

http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lxpj6grFIe1qcaomb.gif

I've gathered that many here are extremely predictable.

 

[HisArpy]

Hey, Rightguide. Are you still unable to find those many threads on the subject or are you too embarrassed to relink them here?

Dog meet bone.

 

[HisArpy]

You need to read some of his “sayings”..as someone currently being investigated and someone with the power to affect the investigation, yes it could be obstructing to anyone except those blindly partisan hacks like yourself...

My opinion is based on an investigation being finished..not based on stupidity.

Why would I need to read his "sayings" in any way other than for the content they contain?

Unlike you, I don't automatically assume things based on bias and hatred.

 

[cowslinger64]

Why would I need to read his "sayings" in any way other than for the content they contain?

Unlike you, I don't automatically assume things based on bias and hatred.

So the only way to find these "sayings" objectionable is to hate and be biased?

"You know I’m automatically attracted to beautiful—I just start kissing them. It’s like a magnet. Just kiss. I don’t even wait. And when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything. Grab them by the p**sy. You can do anything."

—in a 2005 interview with "Access Hollywood"’s Billy Bush


"Why can’t we use nuclear weapons?"

—reportedly asking a foreign policy adviser three times during a meeting why the United States couldn’t use its nuclear weapons stockpile, according to MSNBC's Joe Scarborough


“When Iran, when they circle our beautiful destroyers with their little boats, and they make gestures at our people that they shouldn’t be allowed to make, they will be shot out of the water."

—threatening to go to war with Iran over rude hand gestures, Pensacola, Florida (Sept. 9, 2016)


"He’s not a war hero. He’s a war hero because he was captured. I like people that weren’t captured."

—on John McCain, despite the fact that Trump himself dodged the draft to avoid the Vietnam War


“Now, the poor guy—you've got to see this guy, ‘Ah, I don't know what I said! I don't remember!'"

—mocking New York Times investigative reporter Serge Kovaleski, who has a physical disability called arthrogryposis that limits flexibility in his arms, by jerking his arms in front of his body


There's a bazillion of them... why doesn't this irritate you? What could he possibly do to turn you people off? Wasn't adding more trillions to the debt in order to give tax cuts to the top percent enough? Just that alone, yanno???



Or perhaps this.. maybe this would do it.


"I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody, and I wouldn't lose any voters, okay? It's, like, incredible."

—speaking at a rally in Sioux Center, Iowa, as the audience laughed, January 23, 2016

 

[Sean]

Get a fucking clue. It has been established there was a clear conspiracy in the DOJ and the FBI to exonerate Hillary Clinton of her crimes. James Comey had already composed his letter of exoneration of Clinton before she was even interviewed by the FBI. The DOJ gave immunity to all of the principle offenders on her staff. Read Gregg Jarrett's book, it's all in there and it is all well documented.

Meanwhile for your edification, here is the definitive timeline on Hillary Clinton established by Sharyl Attkisson:

https://sharylattkisson.com/2016/11/06/hillary-clintons-email-the-definitive-timeline/

Here is the definitive on Obama Era Surveillance Timeline. You can start at the 2013 level and work your way forward:
https://sharylattkisson.com/2017/12/05/obama-era-surveillance-timeline/

Were Trey Gowdy and the rest of the Republicans on the committee part of this conspiracy?