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

[Rightguide]

Where do you get these cartoons, they're fucking hilarious! I love them!!!

Just Google Rameriztoons.

 

[Rightguide]

https://i.imgur.com/2LzAL25l.jpg

 

[Luk]

What fucking planet do you come from, the secret service issued Trump an encrypted secured cell phone and only personnel with the same phone can talk to him.

Like the iPhone he uses for twitter? Don't be a fucking moron.

Huh, imagine that...

And, of course, I would also imagine that the Secret Service also has technology available to them that the average citizen wouldn't know about or have access to.

But then, I'm not a guy whose "thing" is phones...

And, of course, I would also imagine that the Secret Service also has technology available to them that the average citizen wouldn't know about or have access to.

But then, I'm not a guy whose "thing" is phones...

LMAO! You think that the Russians can't get around some dipshit securing his phone via Google? Jeezus, just when I think you dipshits can't get any more stupid.

 

[HisArpy]

Well first of all, Comey filled in the blanks. No reasonable prosecutor would file charges BECAUSE the evidence did not support it. I believe that was his reasoning.

That was not Barr's reasoning. He had a different REASON, actually more than one:

--Trump was "frustrated and angry" so it was ok.

--A President can fire whoever he wants to, so it's ok.

--A President can shut down any investigation if he "knows" it to be unwarranted, so all those things he did to obstruct are ok.

There's a fundamental difference. Barr's not disputing that the evidence is there; but it's all ok because reasons.

His argument is absolutely pertinent because he is admitting that Trump tried to; the only reason he did not succeed was because people like McGahn said I won't do it.

It makes no difference. If you try to rob a bank but don't succeed, you're still guilty of the crime.

Barr, unlike Comey with CLinton, fully admits there is evidence Trump tried to obstruct justice; Comey on the other hand said there was wrongdoing, but no evidence of a crime.

Barr's reasoning is well, yes, but a President cannot commit OOJ. It wasn't a crime NOT because he didn't succeed in doing it, but because a President can do whatever he wants.

Got it. Then that's a standard for all Presidents.

You live in a fantasy world. Mueller laid out 11 points for attempted obstruction in his memo. Then he laid out 11 more points which counter the first 11 points.

In any political/legal contest in which there is equal evidence pointing toward guilt and innocence, the benefit of the doubt IN ALL CASES goes to the one being accused. EVERY. FUCKING. TIME.

Based on that, and the applicable standard, Barr had no choice except to decline to move forward. Why? Because we don't put people on trial so that they can prove their innocence.

The fact that Trump has Art II powers also gives him an affirmative defense. This is IN ADDITION TO the standard Barr has to apply. Because, you know, reasonable doubt.

 

[HisArpy]

The next place your hypothetical fails is that if Hillary were Prez, any attempt to impede or forestall the investigation would likely cause Congress to initiate it's own investigation. She can't stop that. Even if she had a majority in the House, that would change at the next election cycle because she's HATED that much.

Nor could she claim exec privilege since the events occurred prior to her election.

So, even if you're correct, it doesn't help your fantasy at all. Sorry, not sorry, about that.

 

[Carnal_Flower]

You don't know the difference between an investigation leading to an indictment (or not) and a COURT OF LAW.

The police gather evidence and arrest, or not. The jury decides guilt or innocence. In this case, Mueller was very clear that were it not for the fact that you could not indict a sitting Pres, he would have indicted. The evidence he amassed pro/for was to set up the material for an impeachment investigation

Besides, none of that has squat to do with why Barr decided to act as judge jury and executioner and simply "acquit" Trump. As I said, he offered all those reasons, plus another one:

--Trump couldn't have obstructed justice because there was no underlying crime (conspiracy.)

You obviously have not listened to what Barr actually said or the reasons he gave. You keep spinning out bullshit without knowing the actual record. YOU keep saying he did this and he did that instead of addressing what he ACTUALLY said and did, which you obviously do not know.

YOu should be paying attention, because like I said, it could be a D president next time and a D AG. If you're ok with how Barr conducted himself with Trump, then you'll support the same thing with a Democrat, which means Hillary could shut down any investigation into herself, and while we're at it, order the AG to investigate her enemies, because Barr is doing that too.

You live in a fantasy world. Mueller laid out 11 points for attempted obstruction in his memo. Then he laid out 11 more points which counter the first 11 points.

In any political/legal contest in which there is equal evidence pointing toward guilt and innocence, the benefit of the doubt IN ALL CASES goes to the one being accused. EVERY. FUCKING. TIME.

Based on that, and the applicable standard, Barr had no choice except to decline to move forward. Why? Because we don't put people on trial so that they can prove their innocence.

The fact that Trump has Art II powers also gives him an affirmative defense. This is IN ADDITION TO the standard Barr has to apply. Because, you know, reasonable doubt.

 

[Carnal_Flower]

So let's review. Disregarding Harpy's pure bullshit, these are the stated public reasons Barr offered for "exonerating" Trump from OOJ:


--Trump was "frustrated and angry" so it was ok.

--A President can fire whoever he wants to, so it's ok.

--A President can shut down any investigation if he "knows" it to be unwarranted, so all those things he did to obstruct are ok.

--Trump couldn't have obstructed justice because there was no underlying crime (conspiracy.)

Those are the facts, suck it up. Those are the standards you must accept if you're going to get behind Barr.

 

[HisArpy]

You don't know the difference between an investigation leading to an indictment (or not) and a COURT OF LAW.

The police gather evidence and arrest, or not. The jury decides guilt or innocence. In this case, Mueller was very clear that were it not for the fact that you could not indict a sitting Pres, he would have indicted. The evidence he amassed pro/for was to set up the material for an impeachment investigation

Stop, just stop.

NO REASONABLE PROSECUTOR will move forward on an indictment or investigation report if they do not have a reasonable belief that a trial will lead to a conviction.

It doesn't matter what else you believe, THAT is the standard they MUST apply or risk disciplinary action/disbarment.

This is BEFORE trial. And the rule they apply when making that decision is whether there is sufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused committed the crime(s) alleged. IF there is evidence which equally exonerates the accused as well as supporting the allegations, then the weight of that evidence MUST GO toward innocence.

They can't even hide that evidence, they MUST produce it upon demand by the defense. IF it's shown that they had the evidence and either failed to disclose it, or failed to adequately consider it, they risk disciplinary action AND suit for abuse of process naming them personally.

No reasonable prosecutor will go down that path. The ones who do are ones like Andy Weisman who has been sanctioned in the past for doing such nefarious things.

Guess who was one of the architects of the Mueller report? Can you also guess why it was written in the way it was written?

Yeah, it was done that way so that people like you, who have an axe to grind about Trump, will continue to believe FAKE NEWS. And you'll spin all sorts of ways to allow you to continue that belief. It's called Trump Derangement Syndrome and you have it bad.

Besides, none of that has squat to do with why Barr decided to act as judge jury and executioner and simply "acquit" Trump. As I said, he offered all those reasons, plus another one:

--Trump couldn't have obstructed justice because there was no underlying crime (conspiracy.)

This is what I'm trying to tell you. No reasonable prosecutor would move forward on the basis of equally incriminating and exonerating evidence. That Trump has Art II powers to do what he did, ALSO means he couldn't obstruct justice.

You obviously have not listened to what Barr actually said or the reasons he gave. You keep spinning out bullshit without knowing the actual record. YOU keep saying he did this and he did that instead of addressing what he ACTUALLY said and did, which you obviously do not know.

YOu should be paying attention, because like I said, it could be a D president next time and a D AG. If you're ok with how Barr conducted himself with Trump, then you'll support the same thing with a Democrat, which means Hillary could shut down any investigation into herself,

I agree with you. She can do this. So, what's the issue?

What you aren't getting is that if this was tried, Congress would go around it and do their own investigation as part of an impeachment proceeding. Please note my post above which says exactly this.

and while we're at it, order the AG to investigate her enemies, because Barr is doing that too.

More fantasy. Bar explicitly said under oath that he hasn't discussed this subject with anyone at the WH nor has he been ordered to initiate such an investigation. From what I've seen, he appears to be extremely reluctant to do it other than looking at the procedures which allowed this whole thing to be started in the first place. To my eye, it appears that he is looking toward making a rule against doing it again rather than conducting an internal mole hunt to find the people involved.

The IG and the FISA courts are a different matter. If THEY make referrals, the Barr will begin investigations on those referrals. He would have no choice because to not do so risks the appearance of a coverup.

Not that it will matter to you, you'll believe he's doing so because Trump is persecuting his political enemies rather than because the IG and FISA Courts asked him to. Because, you know, those people are "hand picked" too. Right?

 

[Carnal_Flower]

Wrong. Barr DID NOT state under oath that he had never been asked to investigate anyone by Trump or the White House, ya frickin' liar.

What he said in response to Kamala Harris, after playing dumb and hemming and hawing was "I don't know."

"I don't know."

You can take that any way you want. I choose it to mean I'm not about to say Yes, because it's illegal, but I can't say No because there were people in the room and I'll be in trouble for perjury, so I'll just say "I don't know."

If the answer was No he would have said No. He did not.

As to the rest, Mueller explicitly stated, more than once, the evidence DOES NOT exonerate Trump of OOJ. If it was a police investigation, in other words, he could not "clear" him or rule him out. There is nothing to prove in any absolute way that he's "innocent." In fact, the opposite; all the eleven points point to guilt and the commission of a crime. By providing the arguments "against," he was going out of his way to give Trump the benefit of the doubt. Its an incomplete investigation--so, he's passing it on to another body constitutionally empowered to pick up and continue the debate.

An impeachment investigation in the House is not a trial. It's a procedure of gathering and weighing evidence which might or might not lead to a vote of impeachment AND THEN it goes to trial in the SENATE ya dumb shit. Basically the House would pick up where Mueller left off.

Stop, just stop.

NO REASONABLE PROSECUTOR will move forward on an indictment or investigation report if they do not have a reasonable belief that a trial will lead to a conviction.

It doesn't matter what else you believe, THAT is the standard they MUST apply or risk disciplinary action/disbarment.

This is BEFORE trial. And the rule they apply when making that decision is whether there is sufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused committed the crime(s) alleged. IF there is evidence which equally exonerates the accused as well as supporting the allegations, then the weight of that evidence MUST GO toward innocence.

They can't even hide that evidence, they MUST produce it upon demand by the defense. IF it's shown that they had the evidence and either failed to disclose it, or failed to adequately consider it, they risk disciplinary action AND suit for abuse of process naming them personally.

No reasonable prosecutor will go down that path. The ones who do are ones like Andy Weisman who has been sanctioned in the past for doing such nefarious things.

Guess who was one of the architects of the Mueller report? Can you also guess why it was written in the way it was written?

Yeah, it was done that way so that people like you, who have an axe to grind about Trump, will continue to believe FAKE NEWS. And you'll spin all sorts of ways to allow you to continue that belief. It's called Trump Derangement Syndrome and you have it bad.



This is what I'm trying to tell you. No reasonable prosecutor would move forward on the basis of equally incriminating and exonerating evidence. That Trump has Art II powers to do what he did, ALSO means he couldn't obstruct justice.



I agree with you. She can do this. So, what's the issue?

What you aren't getting is that if this was tried, Congress would go around it and do their own investigation as part of an impeachment proceeding. Please note my post above which says exactly this.



More fantasy. Bar explicitly said under oath that he hasn't discussed this subject with anyone at the WH nor has he been ordered to initiate such an investigation. From what I've seen, he appears to be extremely reluctant to do it other than looking at the procedures which allowed this whole thing to be started in the first place. To my eye, it appears that he is looking toward making a rule against doing it again rather than conducting an internal mole hunt to find the people involved.

The IG and the FISA courts are a different matter. If THEY make referrals, the Barr will begin investigations on those referrals. He would have no choice because to not do so risks the appearance of a coverup.

Not that it will matter to you, you'll believe he's doing so because Trump is persecuting his political enemies rather than because the IG and FISA Courts asked him to. Because, you know, those people are "hand picked" too. Right?

 

[Carnal_Flower]

According to Barr, she would be able to "Stop" that, that's the whole point.

If a President "knows" a charge to be false, they can shut down investigations, period. Also, if they're "frustrated and angry."

That's what he's claiming for Trump, hence, that's what he's claiming for all Presidents.

The next place your hypothetical fails is that if Hillary were Prez, any attempt to impede or forestall the investigation would likely cause Congress to initiate it's own investigation. She can't stop that. Even if she had a majority in the House, that would change at the next election cycle because she's HATED that much.

Nor could she claim exec privilege since the events occurred prior to her election.

So, even if you're correct, it doesn't help your fantasy at all. Sorry, not sorry, about that.

 

[HisArpy]

Wrong. Barr DID NOT state under oath that he had never been asked to investigate anyone by Trump or the White House, ya frickin' liar.

Umm, wrong.

The White House, he said, had not asked him to open an investigation.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/05/01/att...rump-suggested-that-the-doj-open-inquiry.html

What he said in response to Kamala Harris, after playing dumb and hemming and hawing was "I don't know."

"I don't know."

This was in response to her question about "suggesting". Barr stated that he was having trouble with that word and then said "I don't know".

You can take that any way you want. I choose it to mean I'm not about to say Yes, because it's illegal, but I can't say No because there were people in the room and I'll be in trouble for perjury, so I'll just say "I don't know."

If the answer was No he would have said No. He did not.

As I said above, and provided a link, he said no. Unequivocally.

As to the rest, Mueller explicitly stated, more than once, the evidence DOES NOT exonerate Trump of OOJ. If it was a police investigation, in other words, he could not "clear" him or rule him out. There is nothing to prove in any absolute way that he's "innocent." In fact, the opposite; all the eleven points point to guilt and the commission of a crime. By providing the arguments "against," he was going out of his way to give Trump the benefit of the doubt. Its an incomplete investigation--so, he's passing it on to another body constitutionally empowered to pick up and continue the debate.

And that "constitutionally empowered body" (which is isn't BTW) determined that there was insufficient evidence after reviewing the report.



An impeachment investigation in the House is not a trial. It's a procedure of gathering and weighing evidence which might or might not lead to a vote of impeachment AND THEN it goes to trial in the SENATE ya dumb shit. Basically the House would pick up where Mueller left off.

You still insist on missing the point. IN ANY INVESTIGATION, someone has to make the determination on whether to proceed or not. That determination is based on the evidence and whether there is sufficient evidence to result in a conviction. In this case MUELLER expressly said that there was sufficient alternative explanations for Trump's acts that he could not determine if a crime had been committed. That means, there isn't a reasonable likelyhood of a conviction on the evidence he gathered.

How much more do you need than the fact that the investigator couldn't say if a crime had been committed or not? And then, when his boss looked at his report ALSO can't determine if a crime had been committed, before you begin to realize that everything you're being fed is a lie because it's only half the truth.

You're gullible BECAUSE YOU WANT TO BE gullible.

Reality is different than what you believe. That bites, but it's the way things are.

 

[Que]

Read his Twitter, fuckwaffle.

Shit.

I hope using an iPhone for Twitter does not allow Russia to be able to read his tweets.

 

[Carnal_Flower]

Misstated, as usual.

He didn't make a determination primarily because you cannot indict a sitting Prez, NOT because there was "sufficient doubt." It was not an ordinary case where you just charge a person or not; it was the President and no matter how strong the evidence, you cannot charge a man who does not have the opportunity to defend himself in a court of law. Hence, HE PASSED ALL THE ACCOMPANYING EVIDENCE AND ARGUMENTS ONTO CONGRESS TO MAKE THAT DETERMINATION.

As for there "not being a reasonable likelihood of conviction," pure bull pucky. This was NOT an ordinary case where the DA just decides not to go forward because he doesn't think he can win, which does happen. Mueller does not say that, and these were not ordinary circumstances. He expressly references the DOJ rule that a sitting Prez can't be indicted as his primary reason for not making a call, NOT that he didn't think Trump could be convicted.

He specifically said he does not exonerate Trump of a crime.

You still insist on missing the point. IN ANY INVESTIGATION, someone has to make the determination on whether to proceed or not. That determination is based on the evidence and whether there is sufficient evidence to result in a conviction. In this case MUELLER expressly said that there was sufficient alternative explanations for Trump's acts that he could not determine if a crime had been committed. That means, there isn't a reasonable likelyhood of a conviction on the evidence he gathered.

How much more do you need than the fact that the investigator couldn't say if a crime had been committed or not? And then, when his boss looked at his report ALSO can't determine if a crime had been committed, before you begin to realize that everything you're being fed is a lie because it's only half the truth.

You're gullible BECAUSE YOU WANT TO BE gullible.

Reality is different than what you believe. That bites, but it's the way things are.

 

[HisArpy]

Misstated, as usual.

He didn't make a determination primarily because you cannot indict a sitting Prez, NOT because there was "sufficient doubt." It was not an ordinary case where you just charge a person or not; it was the President and no matter how strong the evidence, you cannot charge a man who does not have the opportunity to defend himself in a court of law. Hence, HE PASSED ALL THE ACCOMPANYING EVIDENCE AND ARGUMENTS ONTO CONGRESS TO MAKE THAT DETERMINATION.

As for there "not being a reasonable likelihood of conviction," pure bull pucky. This was NOT an ordinary case where the DA just decides not to go forward because he doesn't think he can win, which does happen. Mueller does not say that, and these were not ordinary circumstances. He expressly references the DOJ rule that a sitting Prez can't be indicted as his primary reason for not making a call, NOT that he didn't think Trump could be convicted.

He specifically said he does not exonerate Trump of a crime.

https://media.giphy.com/media/LWF7tTUbwDVpC/giphy.gif

Congratulations, you somehow managed to completely ignore everything that's been said so far in the this conversation, which totally refutes your talking points, to merely repeat the first nonsensical crap you started with.

How's that hamster wheel doing? Still squeaking?

 

[Carnal_Flower]

No, the first "nonsensical crap" I started with was to enumerate all the ways Barr came up with to "exonerate" Trump from OOJ, which are a matter of public record. None of that has changed.

You are the one ignoring and/or misstating that reality, because you just can't deal with it.

You cannot deal with the flagrant bullshit coming out of the AG's piehole. You cannot deal with the idea of those same "opinions" being applied to anyone else. You are flipping out trying to come with anything else than to face exactly what the AG said.

https://media.giphy.com/media/LWF7tTUbwDVpC/giphy.gif

Congratulations, you somehow managed to completely ignore everything that's been said so far in the this conversation, which totally refutes your talking points, to merely repeat the first nonsensical crap you started with.

How's that hamster wheel doing? Still squeaking?

 

[KeithD]

https://media.giphy.com/media/LWF7tTUbwDVpC/giphy.gif

Congratulations, you somehow managed to completely ignore everything that's been said so far in the this conversation, which totally refutes your talking points, to merely repeat the first nonsensical crap you started with.

How's that hamster wheel doing? Still squeaking?

Bullshit. You're the purposeful dummy on this point.

 

[Rightguide]

Bullshit. You're the purposeful dummy on this point.

You don't know enough about the subject matter to even understand where he's coming from.

 

[icanhelp1]

Like the iPhone he uses for twitter? Don't be a fucking moron.







LMAO! You think that the Russians can't get around some dipshit securing his phone via Google? Jeezus, just when I think you dipshits can't get any more stupid.

The president has been given one phone he uses for personal use ( twitter, chatting with family) and one that has encrypted safeguards, both give the secret service fits. Anything device that communicate's using any form of electromagnetic waves can be compromised.
Both can be compromised. It's more about when and where and for what purpose to use them. It's not about conducting classified business on them unlike Hillary using her's in Russia.

 

[icanhelp1]

Read his Twitter, fuckwaffle.

Hey CODSWALLOW, he has 2 phones one for his entertainment ( twitter ). He turned in his Android for phones the secret service gave him. I think he was given Hillary's old phone just to make sure his twitter messages got out

AND DON'T CALL ME FUCKWAFFLE!!!!!

 

[cowslinger64]

The president has been given one phone he uses for personal use ( twitter, chatting with family) and one that has encrypted safeguards, both give the secret service fits. Anything device that communicate's using any form of electromagnetic waves can be compromised.
Both can be compromised. It's more about when and where and for what purpose to use them. It's not about conducting classified business on them unlike Hillary using her's in Russia.

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/05/21/trump-phone-security-risk-hackers-601903

‘Too inconvenient’: Trump goes rogue on phone security
The president has kept features at risk for hacking and resisted efforts by staff to inspect the phones he uses for tweeting.


The president uses at least two iPhones, according to one of the officials. The phones — one capable only of making calls, the other equipped only with the Twitter app and preloaded with a handful of news sites — are issued by White House Information Technology and the White House Communications Agency, an office staffed by military personnel that oversees White House telecommunications.

While aides have urged the president to swap out the Twitter phone on a monthly basis, Trump has resisted their entreaties, telling them it was “too inconvenient,” the same administration official said.

The president has gone as long as five months without having the phone checked by security experts. It is unclear how often Trump’s call-capable phones, which are essentially used as burner phones, are swapped out.

 

[cowslinger64]

https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/03/politics/trump-putin-phone-call-mueller-report/index.html

snip

Trump says he spoke with Putin about 'Russian hoax,' didn't warn him against 2020 election meddling

President Donald Trump said he briefly discussed special counsel Robert Mueller's report in a call with Russian President Vladimir Putin on Friday, but didn't warn his Russian counterpart to not meddle in the next US election.

"We didn't discuss that. Really, we didn't discuss it. We discussed five or six things. We also went into great detail on various things," Trump told reporters in the Oval Office after the phone call, which occurred on Friday morning.
Earlier, Trump tweeted he'd discussed the "Russian hoax" with Putin, along with other issues, during their hour-long phone call.

 

[cowslinger64]

https://www.vox.com/2019/4/19/18485535/mueller-report-redactions-data-chart


Mueller report redaction by barr include 46 percent of "Russian Active Measures" Social Media Campaign.

If there was no influence by the Russians, no damage to our electoral process, why would have of that section need to be redacted?

"Russian hacking and dumping operations", 23 percent redacted. What's there to hide?


Ah, it's nothing...

 

[bbx56]

^^^Unhinged NIGGER

 

[cowslinger64]

^^^Unhinged NIGGER

At least you know you're an idiot, and don't try to hide it behind a bunch of bullshit. I do appreciate that about you. Unlike hisderpy, vette, queball and botanydummy...who are blissfully unaware of just how fucking moronic they are.


Thanks!

 

[Aglaopheme]

What fucking planet do you come from, the secret service issued Trump an encrypted secured cell phone and only personnel with the same phone can talk to him.

Sure we believe that Trump can only speak with people that have the same phone that he does.