Hi-Ho Mueller Report, Away

[bodysong]

What would happen, if tRump's White House aides, staff, appointed minions and goons, or tRump's very on personal AG, or the humble house maid for the White House, destroyed the Mueller report ?

"Sorry, someone shredded the Mueller report."
"Cannot read it."

"Who threw the report into the dumpster ?"
"How did the Mueller report get into the incinerator ?"

Could the White House say that it was stolen ? Or lost ?

(I would find it hard to believe that there is only one set of originals, and no copies.)

In an imaginary scenario:

tRump - "Get rid of the Mueller report. Destroy it. I do not care how."
tRump's minions and goons - "Boss, Congress will not like it."
tRump - "Putin would do it. Maybe, the Russians would do it for us."

Meanwhile...

Law.com
@lawdotcom

DOJ: “Congress and the executive branch are co-equal branches of government, and have a constitutional obligation to respect one another’s legitimate interests. Chairman Nadler’s insistence on having staff question the attorney general is inappropriate”

11:12 AM - 2 May 2019

Law.com
Law.com
@lawdotcom Replying to @lawdotcom

Nadler: “Given his lack of candor in describing [Mueller's] work, our members were right to insist that staff counsel be permitted to question the AG. (Barr) I understand why he wants to avoid that kind of scrutiny, but the administration may not dictate terms in our hearing room.”

11:15 AM - 2 May 2019

 

[Rightguide]

Actually, under current law the AG is under no obligation to release any part of the Mueller Report to the Congress or anyone else. The four page summary he sent in the first place was more than what the current law required. Te current law was written by a Democrat Congress after Ken Starr released his report that identified 11 separate felony counts against Bill Clinton. They wrote the current law leaving the matter entirely within the discretion of the AG. Barr could have told them to pound sand.

 

[bodysong]

tRumpypants felt compelled to tweet out a lie about the Mueller report

How many lies has tRumpypants made, on that subject, alone ?

CNN

"Trump finds a new way to lie about Russia scandal, Mueller report"


Right off the bat, we already know that the Mueller report didn’t “strongly state” there was “no collusion.” (I’m starting to suspect Trump didn’t actually read the report. Call it a hunch.) In fact, the special counsel strongly stated that the probe didn’t examine the “collusion” question, and instead considered evidence of conspiracy between the Trump campaign and its Russian benefactors.

And on that front, instead of clearing the Republican operation, Mueller concluded there was insufficient evidence to bring charges.

But it’s the idea that Russians were “rebuffed at every turn” that stands out. A Washington Post analysis described the presidential tweet as “immediately, obviously and somewhat amusingly untrue.”

 

[icanhelp1]

tRumpypants felt compelled to tweet out a lie about the Mueller report

How many lies has tRumpypants made, on that subject, alone ?

CNN

"Trump finds a new way to lie about Russia scandal, Mueller report"


Right off the bat, we already know that the Mueller report didn’t “strongly state” there was “no collusion.” (I’m starting to suspect Trump didn’t actually read the report. Call it a hunch.) In fact, the special counsel strongly stated that the probe didn’t examine the “collusion” question, and instead considered evidence of conspiracy between the Trump campaign and its Russian benefactors.

And on that front, instead of clearing the Republican operation, Mueller concluded there was insufficient evidence to bring charges.

But it’s the idea that Russians were “rebuffed at every turn” that stands out. A Washington Post analysis described the presidential tweet as “immediately, obviously and somewhat amusingly untrue.”

Right off the bat you're wrong. There's no such thing as "strongly state" in law. You either indict or you don't. You either broke the law or you didn't. Mueller din't indict so this issue is dead!!! There are different degrees of evidence in court but we're not in court are we? Nadler and his band of idiots are not in a court setting. Maybe court jesters. Wishful thinking.

 

[icanhelp1]

Actually, under current law the AG is under no obligation to release any part of the Mueller Report to the Congress or anyone else. The four page summary he sent in the first place was more than what the current law required. Te current law was written by a Democrat Congress after Ken Starr released his report that identified 11 separate felony counts against Bill Clinton. They wrote the current law leaving the matter entirely within the discretion of the AG. Barr could have told them to pound sand.

Why is the concept of SPECIAL COUNCIL so hard for these lefty lunes to understand?

Mueller: SPECIAL COUNCIL!

Starr: INDEPENDENT COUNCIL!

 

[Rightguide]

Why is the concept of SPECIAL COUNCIL so hard for these lefty lunes to understand?

Mueller: SPECIAL COUNCIL!

Starr: INDEPENDENT COUNCIL!

They don't know he works for the DOJ and reports to the AG.

 

[Rightguide]

Right off the bat you're wrong. There's no such thing as "strongly state" in law. You either indict or you don't. You either broke the law or you didn't. Mueller din't indict so this issue is dead!!! There are different degrees of evidence in court but we're not in court are we? Nadler and his band of idiots are not in a court setting. Maybe court jesters. Wishful thinking.

It's really pitiful the level of ignorance that exists in society in matters of law and justice. What will unfold in the weeks and months to come is the biggest conspiracy to upend the constitutional order of the United States in our history. Yet they still think Donald Trump did something wrong, besides get elected. People have no idea how close they came to losing their country and we're not out of it yet. The Coup continues as we speak.

 

[bodysong]

Jim Carrey Verified Account
@JimCarrey

Watching William Barr testify is like getting caught in a monsoon of vomit.

READY THE ARK!

3:32 PM - 1 May 2019

AG Barr did not show up to the inquiry,
because he tiptoed through the minefield
and barely made it out.

He was forced to back down very carefully.


Tim O'Brien Verified Account
@TimOBrien

Jim Comey thinks President Trump feeds on the souls
of appointees like his AG and bends them to his will.
But Bill Barr is doing exactly what he believes in and
it’s why he signed on.

This isn’t about a lack of “inner strength.”

It’s a power grab.

6:06 AM - 3 May 2019

Donald Trump Has Finally Found His Soulmate: William Barr

James Comey thinks the president eats into the souls
of appointees like his attorney general. But Barr is
doing exactly what he believes in

Bloomberg Opinion Bloomberg Opinion @bopinion

 

[Rightguide]

Jim Carrey Verified Account
@JimCarrey

Watching William Barr testify is like getting caught in a monsoon of vomit.

READY THE ARK!

3:32 PM - 1 May 2019

AG Barr did not show up to the inquiry,
because he tiptoed through the minefield
and barely made it out.

He was forced to back down very carefully.


Tim O'Brien Verified Account
@TimOBrien

Jim Comey thinks President Trump feeds on the souls
of appointees like his AG and bends them to his will.
But Bill Barr is doing exactly what he believes in and
it’s why he signed on.

This isn’t about a lack of “inner strength.”

It’s a power grab.

6:06 AM - 3 May 2019

Donald Trump Has Finally Found His Soulmate: William Barr

James Comey thinks the president eats into the souls
of appointees like his attorney general. But Barr is
doing exactly what he believes in

Bloomberg Opinion Bloomberg Opinion @bopinion

All of those people are full of crap or part of the coup. Jim Comey is going to go to jail for God's sake. Bloomberg has been lying to you for the last two years. The only reason Barr is being attacked right now is because they know he's about to enforce the law.

 

[phrodeau]

All of those people are full of crap or part of the coup. Jim Comey is going to go to jail for God's sake. Bloomberg has been lying to you for the last two years. The only reason Barr is being attacked right now is because they know he's about to enforce the law.

What coup?

 

[icanhelp1]

What coup?

You're all the way up to 63,748 useless comments, praytell what's your goal?

 

[Rightguide]

What coup?

You know what coup.

 

[phrodeau]

You know what coup.

Venezuela?

 

[Rightguide]

Venezuela?

No clown, the ongoing coup against the sitting President of the United States.

 

[Tigersman]

Right off the bat you're wrong. There's no such thing as "strongly state" in law. You either indict or you don't. You either broke the law or you didn't. Mueller din't indict so this issue is dead!!! There are different degrees of evidence in court but we're not in court are we? Nadler and his band of idiots are not in a court setting. Maybe court jesters. Wishful thinking.

You're wrong about Mueller not indicting. In 1973 the Office of Legal Counsel put out a memorandum on indicting a sitting president. They stated if a sitting president was indicted it would most likely interfere with his executive powers, therefore he should not be indicted. Barr months or at least weeks before he was nominated for AG by trump put out a paper stating a sitting president could not be indicted. Since Mueller works for the DOJ and Barr is now AG Mueller had no choice but to NOT indict trump.

 

[Tigersman]

You know what coup.

The only 'coup' is one tRump made up just like he made up 'deep state'. It's all part of tRump's FAKE NEWS so he can get his base to ignore what the media is reporting and to listen to his lackeys, Fox News, Alex Jones, Hannity and Ingraham.

 

[jomar]

It's really pitiful the level of ignorance that exists in society in matters of law and justice. What will unfold in the weeks and months to come is the biggest conspiracy to upend the constitutional order of the United States in our history. Yet they still think Donald Trump did something wrong, besides get elected. People have no idea how close they came to losing their country and we're not out of it yet. The Coup continues as we speak.

Good point. Trump hasn’t yet become the dictator he yearns to be.

 

[icanhelp1]

You're wrong about Mueller not indicting. In 1973 the Office of Legal Counsel put out a memorandum on indicting a sitting president. They stated if a sitting president was indicted it would most likely interfere with his executive powers, therefore he should not be indicted. Barr months or at least weeks before he was nominated for AG by trump put out a paper stating a sitting president could not be indicted. Since Mueller works for the DOJ and Barr is now AG Mueller had no choice but to NOT indict trump.

That fact is; Mueller was asked if his reason for not finding obstruction of justice had anything to do with not being able to indict a sitting president and his answer was "NO". That answer eliminated any further proceedings. Everything after that is hypothetical. If Mueller's findings were different, Barr still would've shut the case down. Constitutional law is still theory concerning the indictment of a sitting president ( special circumstance, still not proven ). The current procedure is impeachment, removal and prosecution. The case for impeachment or prosecution would have been based on a case without standing in a court of law. The case would have gone forward with criminal charges of obstruction of justice where no crime was committed. How can you obstruct justice when there was no crime to obstruct justice to. The defense for vol 2 is simply that further investigation when the original intent of the investigation vol 1 found no crime and everything after that ,vol 2, was baseless and had no standing in court. Congress could still attempt to impeach but Nadler's proceedings of impeachment is laughable and would never even get out of the house. The congress acted like court jesters Thurs. with the chicken prop. If you're a democrat you should be ashamed of how they represented the judicial committee, one of the most prestigious body's of law in our government. Nadler is single handedly ruining your 2020 chances.

 

[icanhelp1]

The only 'coup' is one tRump made up just like he made up 'deep state'. It's all part of tRump's FAKE NEWS so he can get his base to ignore what the media is reporting and to listen to his lackeys, Fox News, Alex Jones, Hannity and Ingraham.

At least try to be objective. You're a Trump hater. You forget there are two articles and the only reason we're having this conversation is that Trump had enough courage to put it all out there and not use his executive privilege.. Barr could have decided not to publish the report period. He doesn't report to Nadler. People don't understand the law

 

[Desiremakesmeweak]

Not only is Nadler a joke, but he's reckless.

Roger Jenkins the not-long-ago head of Barclays Investment Banking was in court in the UK this week, contesting claims by the UK Serious Fraud Office about his unfairly receiving a large fee from the Qatar government in the rescue of Barclays following the 2008 GFC.

Nadler must know that sooner or later Bill Priestap will be hauled before the Senate and questioned about his involvement with the UK's MI6 in all of this; it wouldn't take much more than a hint from people at DIA who know, to get a senator to ask about whether he knows Jenkins, and if Jenkins might know which senators, congressmen, ex-FBI and CIA personnel and Obama-era people had/have secret numbered accounts in Qatar...

And if any idiot here from some troll farm thinks that I myself couldn't leak such material, well, you're wrong.

One person I'd certainly like to ask the following questions directly to, publicly, is - Bob Corker: 'do you know anyone in Qatar?' '...And if so, why.' 'Have you ever been offered any inducements by them?'

If I were the DNC I wouldn't necessarily be so scared of Assange. What he's had to reveal is mostly already out. But I would want to 'ice' Jenkins pronto.

 

[phrodeau]

I guess nobody can be charged with resisting arrest if they’re innocent of the crime on the warrant. No obstruction is illegal in that situation.

 

[icanhelp1]

Not only is Nadler a joke, but he's reckless.

Roger Jenkins the not-long-ago head of Barclays Investment Banking was in court in the UK this week, contesting claims by the UK Serious Fraud Office about his unfairly receiving a large fee from the Qatar government in the rescue of Barclays following the 2008 GFC.

Nadler must know that sooner or later Bill Priestap will be hauled before the Senate and questioned about his involvement with the UK's MI6 in all of this; it wouldn't take much more than a hint from people at DIA who know, to get a senator to ask about whether he knows Jenkins, and if Jenkins might know which senators, congressmen, ex-FBI and CIA personnel and Obama-era people had/have secret numbered accounts in Qatar...

And if any idiot here from some troll farm thinks that I myself couldn't leak such material, well, you're wrong.



One person I'd certainly like to ask the following questions directly to, publicly, is - Bob Corker: 'do you know anyone in Qatar?' '...And if so, why.' 'Have you ever been offered any inducements by them?'

If I were the DNC I wouldn't necessarily be so scared of Assange. What he's had to reveal is mostly already out. But I would want to 'ice' Jenkins pronto.

I agree, that's the second shoe to drop.

 

[icanhelp1]

I guess nobody can be charged with resisting arrest if they’re innocent of the crime on the warrant. No obstruction is illegal in that situation.

Do you sit alone in your room and throw shit against the wall?

 

[Rightguide]

Good point. Trump hasn’t yet become the dictator he yearns to be.

When did he express a desire to become a dictator?

 

[phrodeau]

When did he express a desire to become a dictator?

March 3, 2018.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...-xi-jinping-power-grab-give-that-a-shot-china