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

[LincolnDuncan]

Seems to be the depth of understanding of most people these days on any given subject. I would ordinarily not count you in that particular grouping. Some of your post as of late though seem to show a lot of frustration and not as much understanding of the actual underlying issues.

I think some people who tend to be fairly interested in the increasingly rare in-depth pieces are a little burned out. I know I am because I tend to skim a lot of it.

My take on this is my skim is better than your skim because for the moment the facts are on quote unquote my sides quote unquote team. Your side is understandably demoralized because impeachments never going to happen so therefore there's an awful lot of Hail Marys being thrown up.

I'm an independent, the only side I'm on is truth. I get my information from all sides and use my critical thinking skills to determine what I believe to be true.

 

[KeithD]

Did you read the article you referenced?

The Democrats "are objecting to the trailer after the movie was released."

The movie hasn't been released. Who do you think you're fooling? Following the Trump adage that if you just say a lie enough, it becomes the truth?

 

[Rightguide]

And then there's the fact that if Nadler issues the sub P, AND Barr doesn't show up after that, then the entire House has to vote on whether to hold him in contempt. And then, if he's held in contempt of Congress;

a) The contempt referral goes to him to follow up on or disregard;

b) Trump can pardon him for it at any time.

IOW, the whackjob D's on the House Judiciary committee can go pound sand. Even their pro-Get-Trump! media outlets are laughing at them over this crap.

Nadler's demand that Barr, a Cabinet level officer, submit to interrogation by House staff lawyers is unprecedented in US history. They want this to look like an impeachment inquiry instead of an oversight hearing, but don't have the stones to convene an impeachment inquiry. Apparently they're too damn stupid and afraid to ask their own questions or appear to be harassing the AG in public. These are really inferior people. There are no more the likes of Sam Erwin, Sam Nunn, Henry Jackson, Hubert Humphrey in the Democrat Party, just pretenders.

 

[Rightguide]

The movie hasn't been released. Who do you think you're fooling? Following the Trump adage that if you just say a lie enough, it becomes the truth?

Shut up, you lied for two years.

 

[cowslinger64]

This is what happens when you expect to be spoon fed information - you fail.
Here's your linky:

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/04/19/us/politics/redacted-mueller-report.html

Which says:



Do the math airhead.

It works out to be only 1.8 percent of the entire document being redacted because of sealed Grand Jury testimony. You can also do the math from there to discover (amazingly) that 100 minus 1.8 percent equals 98.2 percent.



Pardon me while I laugh in your face some more.

First of all... I only asked for a link. I can see how far I've gotten into your empty head that you'd be sooooo VICTORIOUS about providing a link. Which is all I asked for. Rent free.

Second.. You rarely ever produce anything to back up your opinions, which have been shown not to be worth much.

Third.. the only thing to laugh about is your general stupidity. Which is more funny sad, than funny ha ha.

 

[Carnal_Flower]

Wrong, wrong, and wrong.

He IS entitled to the full redacted report, just like he is LEGALLY entitled to Trump's tax returns--or whoever is in charge of that. He does NOT need a court order to see some of the redactions. Barr is NOT fully within the law to withhold the unredacted report--as will become obvious if it goes to court.

They know it's a losing game, legally, they're just doing it to waste time until the elections.

Either way, why is he holding it back? What do they not want Congress to know?

And just shut up. You're such a reactive tool.

NO, he can't.

Nadler isn't entitled to the fully unredacted report. He has to get a court order before he can see some of the redactions. He ain't got one. Thus, Barr is fully within the law to withhold the unredacted report and Nadler can go pound sand.

PLUS: There's another mostly unredacted report (98% readable) available in a SCIF room that D's can go see any time they want. NONE, NOT A SINGLE DEMOCRAT, has gone to look at it.

What's that tell you?

 

[Carnal_Flower]

Also, Barr is a chickenshit lackey.


https://2vwlfu3ynqxb3npfhm3m8lde-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/2019-05-02T143856Z_154962569_RC13F884D390_RTRMADP_3_USA-TRUMP-CONGRESS-BARR.jpg

 

[HisArpy]

Wrong, wrong, and wrong.

He IS entitled to the full redacted report, just like he is LEGALLY entitled to Trump's tax returns--or whoever is in charge of that. He does NOT need a court order to see some of the redactions. Barr is NOT fully within the law to withhold the unredacted report--as will become obvious if it goes to court.

They know it's a losing game, legally, they're just doing it to waste time until the elections.

Either way, why is he holding it back? What do they not want Congress to know?

And just shut up. You're such a reactive tool.

Under the law, grand jury deliberations and evidence as well as testimony are SEALED and may not be viewed by ANYONE outside of the prosecutor who presented the case without a court order.

It cannot be subpoenaed. It cannot be discussed via testimony. It is SEALED and anyone who wanted access has to petition the court for an order. Getting that order is a tall tall tall task and it's very very very rarely granted.

Nadler (and you) can go pound sand.

If you think otherwise, you're daft. Not that you aren't anyway.

 

[HisArpy]

First of all... I only asked for a link. I can see how far I've gotten into your empty head that you'd be sooooo VICTORIOUS about providing a link. Which is all I asked for. Rent free.

Second.. You rarely ever produce anything to back up your opinions, which have been shown not to be worth much.

Third.. the only thing to laugh about is your general stupidity. Which is more funny sad, than funny ha ha.

dudly, you're dumber than CF. And that's saying a lot in a short space.

But go ahead and crow about how you think you're so superior, no one else cares. Or is listening to you.

 

[Que]

dudly, you're dumber than CF. And that's saying a lot in a short space.

But go ahead and crow about how you think you're so superior, no one else cares. Or is listening to you.

I have heard it said that the people that are the most full of themselves, are the ones that really shouldn't be.

 

[nowisthetime]

Deplorables seem to be having a very bad evening.

Here's hoping these triggered snowflakes get the rest they need.

Nighty night.

Just a bad evening? Hell, they have terrible lives.

It's the beautiful month of May and they are still triggered.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Just a bad evening? Hell, they have terrible lives.

It's the beautiful month of May and they are still triggered.

That's not the beautiful month of May. It's the merry, merry month of May.

 

[Rightguide]

Wrong, wrong, and wrong.

He IS entitled to the full redacted report, just like he is LEGALLY entitled to Trump's tax returns--or whoever is in charge of that. He does NOT need a court order to see some of the redactions. Barr is NOT fully within the law to withhold the unredacted report--as will become obvious if it goes to court.

They know it's a losing game, legally, they're just doing it to waste time until the elections.

Either way, why is he holding it back? What do they not want Congress to know?

And just shut up. You're such a reactive tool.

You don't know the law. Nadler or any other member of Congress is not "entitled" to the full redacted report, or Trump's taxes. First Barr is under no legal obligation to release any part of the Mueller Report to Congress or anyone else, according to the law under which he is currently operating, and here are the legal cites of all the reasons why the Congress is not entitled to Trump's tax returns:

Nat’l Treasury Employees Union v. FLRA, 791 F.2d 183, 184 (D.C. Cir. 1986).

EPIC v. IRS, 910 F.3d 1232, 1235 (D.C. Cir. 2018)

18 U.S.C. §1905; 26 U.S.C. §§7213(a)(1), 7431(a).

EPIC, 910 F.3d at 1235.

Watkins v. United States, 354 U.S. 178, 187 (1957).

United States v. Patterson, 206 F.2d 433, 434 (D.C. Cir. 1953).

Kilbourn v. Thompson, 103 U.S. 168, 190 (1880).

Watkins, 354 U.S. at 200, 187. Id. at 187. Id. at 188.

Rutan v. Republican Party of Ill., 497 U.S. 62, 75 (1990); Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach, 138 S.Ct. 1945, 1949 (2018).

Cruise-Gulyas v. Minard, 918 F.3d 494, 497 (6th Cir. 2019).

Perry v. Sindermann, 408 U.S. 593, 597 (1972).

Op. O.L.C. 27, 31 (1981).

26 U.S.C. §6103(g).

Pillsbury Co. v. FTC, 354 F.2d 952, 964 (5th Cir. 1966).

0 Op. O.L.C. 68, 76 (1986).

8 Op. O.L.C. 252, 263 (1984).

Have fun educating yourself.

 

[Rightguide]

Wrong, wrong, and wrong.

You lied for two years, current events now proving how totally wrong you were. I told you two friggin' years ago you were wrong but like a dummy you didn't listen. You're wrong, own it.

 

[Kantarii]

You lied for two years, current events now proving how totally wrong you were. I told you two friggin' years ago you were wrong but like a dummy you didn't listen. You're wrong, own it.

Some people just can’t handle the truth no matter how much you tell them. Kant

 

[Rightguide]

Some people just can’t handle the truth no matter how much you tell them. Kant

Isn't that the truth, especially that person. He's still spouting that same old bullshit even as the evidence to the contrary is in the public domain and has been for months, and in some cases, years.

 

[Carnal_Flower]

Full of [chicken] shit, as per usual.


Litman: Congress can get the unredacted version of the Mueller report

Under the law, grand jury deliberations and evidence as well as testimony are SEALED and may not be viewed by ANYONE outside of the prosecutor who presented the case without a court order.

It cannot be subpoenaed. It cannot be discussed via testimony. It is SEALED and anyone who wanted access has to petition the court for an order. Getting that order is a tall tall tall task and it's very very very rarely granted.

Nadler (and you) can go pound sand.

If you think otherwise, you're daft. Not that you aren't anyway.

 

[Que]

Somebody left the lights on.

~click~

 

[cowslinger64]

I have heard it said that the people that are the most full of themselves, are the ones that really shouldn't be.

If there's ever been anyone that applies to, it'd be you.

So I've the retarded older brother of Matlock that professes to be a lawyer and has so many clients, that he is here all the time and has money problems.

Then there is Driving Miss Daisy and his 87 Yugo and a giant head full of vast superior intellectual capacity.

 

[HisArpy]

Full of [chicken] shit, as per usual.


Litman: Congress can get the unredacted version of the Mueller report

Lol, Litman's a bigger idiot than you are

First, he's giving his opinion which contradicts itself. Further, he incorrectly extrapolates both the law and judicial precedent on the hows/whys of when Grand Jury evidence can be unsealed. I'd hate to go to court to try and convince a judge on that basis. I doubt anyone else will want to try it either. Which is why you don't see anyone either doing it or seriously contemplating doing it.

Second, the law which establishes the Special Counsel EXPRESSLY STATES that the entire decision on whether to release the report, in whole or in part, is 100% up to the AG. That's the law. A law which Congress passed and the President signed. Under that law Congress purposefully limited it's ability to have access to the report except through the AG. If, under the law, the AG deems some of the information be kept from Congress, then they either have to live with that decision or pass a bill which changes the law and hope Trump signs it. Good luck with 'dat.

So, the reality of the whole thing is that Congress gets to either go pound sand or begin an impeachment hearing on the basis of information they don't have access to. Good luck getting that one over the bar.

 

[HisArpy]

If there's ever been anyone that applies to, it'd be you.

So I've the retarded older brother of Matlock that professes to be a lawyer and has so many clients, that he is here all the time and has money problems.

Then there is Driving Miss Daisy and his 87 Yugo and a giant head full of vast superior intellectual capacity.

Feel better now that you've gotten all that off your chest?

 

[HisArpy]

I have heard it said that the people that are the most full of themselves, are the ones that really shouldn't be.

I heard that extra strength Ex-Lax works as a temporary cure for that. I prefer a balanced diet myself, but some people insist on only supping from one source. Which often leads to constipation.

 

[Aglaopheme]

Idiot indeed.

Lol, Litman's a bigger idiot than you are

First, he's giving his opinion which contradicts itself. Further, he incorrectly extrapolates both the law and judicial precedent on the hows/whys of when Grand Jury evidence can be unsealed. I'd hate to go to court to try and convince a judge on that basis. I doubt anyone else will want to try it either. Which is why you don't see anyone either doing it or seriously contemplating doing it.

Second, the law which establishes the Special Counsel EXPRESSLY STATES that the entire decision on whether to release the report, in whole or in part, is 100% up to the AG. That's the law. A law which Congress passed and the President signed. Under that law Congress purposefully limited it's ability to have access to the report except through the AG. If, under the law, the AG deems some of the information be kept from Congress, then they either have to live with that decision or pass a bill which changes the law and hope Trump signs it. Good luck with 'dat.

So, the reality of the whole thing is that Congress gets to either go pound sand or begin an impeachment hearing on the basis of information they don't have access to. Good luck getting that one over the bar.

 

[Rightguide]

Full of [chicken] shit, as per usual.


Litman: Congress can get the unredacted version of the Mueller report

Let the Congress take it to court and get slapped down.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Under the law, grand jury deliberations and evidence as well as testimony are SEALED and may not be viewed by ANYONE outside of the prosecutor who presented the case without a court order.

It cannot be subpoenaed. It cannot be discussed via testimony. It is SEALED and anyone who wanted access has to petition the court for an order. Getting that order is a tall tall tall task and it's very very very rarely granted.

....the law which establishes the Special Counsel EXPRESSLY STATES that the entire decision on whether to release the report, in whole or in part, is 100% up to the AG. That's the law. A law which Congress passed and the President signed. Under that law Congress purposefully limited it's ability to have access to the report except through the AG.

Let's review.

• Yesterday, Barrister TimmehThreeTries claimed the report cannot be given access without a court order.
• Today, Barrister TimmehThreeTries claims that the AG decides who, if any, get to see the report.

Question: Was TimmehThreeTries lying to us yesterday? Or is he lying to us today?