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

[Luk]

And this is a problem?

Yes, for us smart people.

 

[cowslinger64]

And this is a problem?

You have officially reached the amount of absolute fucking stupidity for me, for one day.



You are one monumental dumbass.

 

[Aglaopheme]

This is why you're an idjit in public.

Fact: Trump divested himself of all involvement with his company when he became President. How/what/why/specific details are irrelevant because the purpose and intent is for Trump to not be involved in the day-to-day operations and decisions and thus not "profit" from those operations officially.

Thus the article, when it states that the gov did business "with Trump" is A BLATANT LIE. Trump himself did not engage in business with the gov after he was elected, his COMPANY did. A company which he divested himself from once he was elected.

Thus, the lie built on multiple levels of untruths.

And you willingly swallowed it all.

Because you want to believe, in spite of the truth and facts, that Trump is evil.

https://media.giphy.com/media/3oz8xLd9DJq2l2VFtu/giphy.gif

 

[someoneyouknow]

This is why you're an idjit in public.

Fact: Trump divested himself of all involvement with his company when he became President. How/what/why/specific details are irrelevant because the purpose and intent is for Trump to not be involved in the day-to-day operations and decisions and thus not "profit" from those operations officially.

Thus the article, when it states that the gov did business "with Trump" is A BLATANT LIE. Trump himself did not engage in business with the gov after he was elected, his COMPANY did. A company which he divested himself from once he was elected.

Thus, the lie built on multiple levels of untruths.

And you willingly swallowed it all.

Because you want to believe, in spite of the truth and facts, that Trump is evil.

The con artist did not divest himself from his failing businesses. He only turned control over to other members of his family.

Donald Trump will not divest from his business empire and will instead hand over control of his companies to sons Eric and Donald Jr., along with his longtime Chief Financial Officer Allen Weisselberg, Trump and his lawyer announced in a press conference at Trump Tower on Wednesday morning.​

. . .

While Trump said his plan goes beyond what he is required to do, the move disappointed some ethics experts, who have been calling on Trump to sell his assets and put the proceeds into a blind trust. Trump will apparently, through the trust, retain ownership of the Trump Organization companies and will benefit financially from their dealings.

“Stepping back from running his business is meaningless from a conflict of interest perspective,” said U.S. Office of Government Ethics director Walter Schaub Jr. in remarks at the Brookings Institution on Wednesday, describing Trump’s plan as “wholly inadequate.”

“He has all of the conflicts of interest that he had before,” Richard Painter, who served as chief ethics lawyer in the George W. Bush administration, told Forbes. “We don’t know who his business partners are, we don’t know who he owes.”​

https://www.forbes.com/sites/chasewithorn/2017/01/11/donald-trump-will-hand-over-business/

 

[someoneyouknow]

Mueller is now scheduled to testify on May 15th before the House Judiciary Committee. That is unless the con artist prohibits him from talking about the fake report, the one which totally exonerated him of every crime.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/05/politics/mueller-testify-house-judiciary-committee/index.html

 

[phrodeau]

This is why you're an idjit in public.

Fact: Trump divested himself of all involvement with his company when he became President. How/what/why/specific details are irrelevant because the purpose and intent is for Trump to not be involved in the day-to-day operations and decisions and thus not "profit" from those operations officially.

Thus the article, when it states that the gov did business "with Trump" is A BLATANT LIE. Trump himself did not engage in business with the gov after he was elected, his COMPANY did. A company which he divested himself from once he was elected.

Thus, the lie built on multiple levels of untruths.

And you willingly swallowed it all.

Because you want to believe, in spite of the truth and facts, that Trump is evil.

Truth and facts, eh?

https://www.usnews.com/opinion/arti...ing-from-the-presidency-let-us-count-the-ways

 

[icanhelp1]

Exactly, WHY BOTHER?



I don't care what phone he talks to his Master on. I'm talking about the blatantly unsecured iPhone that he conducts official White House business with. It can and probably is/was hacked. Remember, they got Jeff Bezos and he's in fucking tech, douchecanoe.

Luk; are you KeithD's alt? You blatantly resemble his style. Are you the sky pilot himself, in drag?


I thought I said no communications using an electromagnetic source can be absolutely secured. Can you say *****ELECTROMAGNETIC*****

What's a douchecanoe? is that something bad?

 

[Rightguide]

This is why you're an idjit in public.

Fact: Trump divested himself of all involvement with his company when he became President. How/what/why/specific details are irrelevant because the purpose and intent is for Trump to not be involved in the day-to-day operations and decisions and thus not "profit" from those operations officially.

Thus the article, when it states that the gov did business "with Trump" is A BLATANT LIE. Trump himself did not engage in business with the gov after he was elected, his COMPANY did. A company which he divested himself from once he was elected.

Thus, the lie built on multiple levels of untruths.

And you willingly swallowed it all.

Because you want to believe, in spite of the truth and facts, that Trump is evil.

Just for the sake of upsetting an apple cart or two the emoluments clause has never been litigated or reviewed by the SCOTUS in our history, correct me if I'm wrong. There are actual arguments as why it wouldn't apply to the President, the Vice President, or other elected officials. Here's one of them:


Scholar Seth Barrett Tillman has laid out the argument on the other side. In a recent New York Times piece he explains –

There are three good reasons to believe that the [Emoluments Clause] does not [apply to the President].

First, the Constitution does not rely on generalized “office” language to refer to the president and vice president. Where a provision is meant to apply to such apex or elected officials, the provision expressly names those officials. For example, the Impeachment Clause applies to the “president, vice president and all civil officers of the United States…”

Second, the Foreign Gifts Clause was given an early construction by George Washington. While he was president, Washington received two gifts from officials of the French government — including a diplomatic gift from the French ambassador. Washington accepted the gifts, he kept the gifts, and he never asked for or received congressional consent. There is no record of any anti-administration congressman or senator criticizing the president’s conduct. As Professor Akhil Amar has reminded us, the precedents set by President Washington and his administration deserve special deference in regard to both foreign affairs and presidential etiquette.

Finally, in 1792, again during the Washington administration, the Senate ordered Secretary of the Treasury Alexander Hamilton to supply a list of persons holding office under the United States and their salaries. Hamilton’s 90-page responsive list included appointed officers in each of the three branches, but did not include any elected officials in any branch. In other words, officers under the United States are appointed; by contrast, the president is elected, so he is not an officer under the United States. Thus, the Foreign Gifts Clause, and its operative office under the United States language, does not apply to the presidency.

 

[Luk]

Luk; are you KeithD's alt? You blatantly resemble his style. Are you the sky pilot himself, in drag?


I thought I said no communications using an electromagnetic source can be absolutely secured. Can you say *****ELECTROMAGNETIC*****

What's a douchecanoe? is that something bad?

Cool, you agree with Luk that 45 uses unsecured phone(s). See? It wasn't that hard.

 

[HisArpy]

Yes, for us smart people.

So you exclude yourself then. That's okay with me.

 

[icanhelp1]

Mueller is now scheduled to testify on May 15th before the House Judiciary Committee. That is unless the con artist prohibits him from talking about the fake report, the one which totally exonerated him of every crime.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/05/politics/mueller-testify-house-judiciary-committee/index.html

Now it's a fake report. Is Nancy Pelosi your mother and is Jerry Nadler your father? Going to have to be careful when they meet, chicken bones all over the place.

 

[HisArpy]

https://media.giphy.com/media/3oz8xLd9DJq2l2VFtu/giphy.gif

The con artist did not divest himself from his failing businesses. He only turned control over to other members of his family.

Donald Trump will not divest from his business empire and will instead hand over control of his companies to sons Eric and Donald Jr., along with his longtime Chief Financial Officer Allen Weisselberg, Trump and his lawyer announced in a press conference at Trump Tower on Wednesday morning.​

. . .

While Trump said his plan goes beyond what he is required to do, the move disappointed some ethics experts, who have been calling on Trump to sell his assets and put the proceeds into a blind trust. Trump will apparently, through the trust, retain ownership of the Trump Organization companies and will benefit financially from their dealings.

“Stepping back from running his business is meaningless from a conflict of interest perspective,” said U.S. Office of Government Ethics director Walter Schaub Jr. in remarks at the Brookings Institution on Wednesday, describing Trump’s plan as “wholly inadequate.”

“He has all of the conflicts of interest that he had before,” Richard Painter, who served as chief ethics lawyer in the George W. Bush administration, told Forbes. “We don’t know who his business partners are, we don’t know who he owes.”​

https://www.forbes.com/sites/chasewithorn/2017/01/11/donald-trump-will-hand-over-business/

http://forum.literotica.com/showpost.php?p=90745033&postcount=2002

Please pay attention to the following words which you seem to have skipped over the first time:

How/what/why/specific details are irrelevant because the purpose and intent is for Trump to not be involved in the day-to-day operations and decisions and thus not "profit" from those operations officially.

See where you went wrong now?

Truth and facts, eh?

https://www.usnews.com/opinion/arti...ing-from-the-presidency-let-us-count-the-ways

GOFUCKYOURSELF

 

[icanhelp1]

Cool, you agree with Luk that 45 uses unsecured phone(s). See? It wasn't that hard.

Well Luk, you're going to have to brush up on your grammar skills to compete with KeithD. Not sure I understand what you just wrote?

 

[cowslinger64]

Thus, the lie built on multiple levels of untruths.

And you willingly swallowed it all.

Because you want to believe, in spite of the truth and facts, that Trump is evil.

Lol...timmy uses one example of the instances of trump violating emoluments clause and refutes with his opinion. Which has been shown to be worth absolutely nothing.

 

[Luk]

Well Luk, you're going to have to brush up on your grammar skills to compete with KeithD. Not sure I understand what you just wrote?

Nah, your comprehension skills are just garbage.

 

[someoneyouknow]

Please pay attention to the following words which you seem to have skipped over the first time:

You mean these words?

Trump will apparently, through the trust, retain ownership of the Trump Organization companies and will benefit financially from their dealings.​

Kindly explain how retaining ownership of something is considered divestment.

See where you went wrong now?

 

[HisArpy]

You mean these words?

Trump will apparently, through the trust, retain ownership of the Trump Organization companies and will benefit financially from their dealings.​

Kindly explain how retaining ownership of something is considered divestment.

See where you went wrong now?

I SAID that the "hows/where/whys/etc" are irrelevant to the fact that he doesn't run his company any longer.

See where you fucked up by a lack of reading comprehension and dismissing reality in favor of fantasy?



Trump has NOTHING to do with running his company. He gave over control to his family.'

His only involvement is as a 'shareholder" in the company. That doesn't violate the Emoluments Clause. If it did, every member of Congress would be guilty of it.

That article you're citing to explicitly spins that he doesn't run his company any longer and minimizes it in order to make you reach a conclusion which is based on a FALSE premise.

I've given you FACTS and you disregard them to continue to promote that false premise. That you insist on doing so, even in the face of other repeated failures on similar arguments where you were ALSO shown to be wrong, is a testament to your tenaciousness in believing lies over truth. Unfortunately, that's not a good thing.

 

[Carnal_Flower]

I have no idea what you're talking about.

What "theory?" What "position?"

I held up the public statements of the US AG. There they are. If you accept them, then you must accept them for everyone. End of "position."

You did what you ALWAYS do... You came up with a theory based on half the facts while ignoring the other half of the facts because they defeat your own position. You then posted it on the forum.

In part, I AGREED WITH YOU, yet you continually miss that point and continue to flog yourself in an attempt to say I didn't when the words are right there on the screen. Did you not see them? Or did you not comprehend them? Or did your mind hiccup and cause some kind of mental worm hole where my agreeing with you somehow got twisted inside out to become a DISagreement? If so, that's on you, not me or anyone else.

On the parts I disagree, I showed you where your theory fell apart by actually quoting text and providing links and giving you other information you might not have had. You ignored those links, denigrated the information you were given, and then restated your original theory. To wit: Your theory ignores factual data and substitutes one-sided politically motivated beliefs for it. You dismiss reality and substitute fantasy and refuse to admit that you've miscalculated in both the mentality of your audience and the quality of your presentation.

Seriously, if you don't want to discuss things, and instead merely want to pronounce your opinions even after they're proven to be nothing but crap, STFU and go away. No one needs a queen telling them what to think. And, if you believe you're capable of doing that with the bunch of introverted fuckups running around loose in this place, you seriously need to up your meds.

In sum: Barr did not say what you're trying to prove. You've edited his testimony and falsely promoted it as something it is not. You then posited novel theories which do not comport with established precedent, laws, legal maxims and processes, or just plain common sense. Yet somehow you believe it's Barr who's making a mistake in all of this and no matter how many times you're shown that you're wrong, you merely keep on believing.

That's called faith. It belongs in church, not politics.

 

[cowslinger64]

Poor timmy the snowflake..


https://media1.tenor.com/images/037dbf2be08fd02a8e79a484843259d1/tenor.gif?itemid=11726580

 

[Rightguide]

I have no idea what you're talking about.

This is what I told you last night. You just don't grasp the legal points he's making. Somehow you're going to have to eke out a friggin' clue from somewhere.

 

[cowslinger64]

This is what I told you last night. You just don't grasp the legal points he's making. Somehow you're going to have to eke out a friggin' clue from somewhere.

There's nothing to grab, vette. That's the point.

 

[IrezumiKiss]

I get it now!

Cheeto retains ownership of his company and profits from it, but he doesn't "profit" from it at the same time because he doesn't "run" it!

https://media1.giphy.com/media/pfHBWCCOySoRq/giphy.gif

"If you travel back into your own past, that destination becomes your future, and your former present becomes the past, which can’t now be changed by your new future."

https://media.giphy.com/media/lT4sgCJwC7B4c/giphy.gif

 

[HisArpy]

I have no idea what you're talking about.

What "theory?" What "position?"

I held up the public statements of the US AG. There they are. If you accept them, then you must accept them for everyone. End of "position."

You misstated Barr's testimony. That's a FACT. Then you mischaracterized it. That's also a FACT. Then you attempted to apply that misstatement and mischaracterization to a hypothetical which is flawed in its basic concepts.

For the sake of discussion I followed along with your hypothetical and showed you where you made your mistakes.

At which point you merely restated your original premise as if nothing had been discussed indicating where you erred.

Now you reattempt to restate that original premise one more time under the false guise of "I don't understand what you're saying so I'm going to disregard it once again".

At some point you need to get off the hamster wheel.

Barr did NOT say what you attempt to show. The testimony you try to use was edited and several questions from Senator Harris were removed and his response to a later question inserted as the response to her first question of the sequence. This is unethical and dubious and indicates the depths you will go to KNOWINGLY fabricate a LIE.

Shame on you.

From there:

I agreed with you that Barr's statement that Art II allows the President to fire at will even if it results in obstruction of justice. I agreed with you that Hillary could have done so had she been elected. This, as you say, applies to all.

Where you err is in 2 points.

1. It didn't happen. Thus this discussion has no relevancy to what did happen. Attempting to apply such concepts to events which didn't occur doesn't resolve anything about what did occur. IOW, stick to the facts and not something you fantasized about.

2. THE TRUE FLY in the ointment is that doing such a thing as you posit in your hypothetical will immediately result in an impeachment in the House and removal from office in the Senate irrespective of which party is in power. The power and authority are there. The reality is that it is not usable without catastrophic consequences. In essence, attempting to cover up your offenses by the lawful use of power will convict you of those offenses anyway.

To sum up:

Your position is based on a lie which you then use to promote a hypothetical which has 2 clear, distinct, and separate errors in both logic and reason.

Repeatedly restating that position in the face of being shown those facts several times in a row, is stupid. Get off the hamster wheel.

 

[Carnal_Flower]

I did not misstate Barr's testimony. I did not mischaracterize it. You're in La la land as usual

You misstated Barr's testimony. That's a FACT. Then you mischaracterized it. That's also a FACT. Then you attempted to apply that misstatement and mischaracterization to a hypothetical which is flawed in its basic concepts.

For the sake of discussion I followed along with your hypothetical and showed you where you made your mistakes.

At which point you merely restated your original premise as if nothing had been discussed indicating where you erred.

Now you reattempt to restate that original premise one more time under the false guise of "I don't understand what you're saying so I'm going to disregard it once again".

At some point you need to get off the hamster wheel.

Barr did NOT say what you attempt to show. The testimony you try to use was edited and several questions from Senator Harris were removed and his response to a later question inserted as the response to her first question of the sequence. This is unethical and dubious and indicates the depths you will go to KNOWINGLY fabricate a LIE.

Shame on you.

From there:

I agreed with you that Barr's statement that Art II allows the President to fire at will even if it results in obstruction of justice. I agreed with you that Hillary could have done so had she been elected. This, as you say, applies to all.

Where you err is in 2 points.

1. It didn't happen. Thus this discussion has no relevancy to what did happen. Attempting to apply such concepts to events which didn't occur doesn't resolve anything about what did occur. IOW, stick to the facts and not something you fantasized about.

2. THE TRUE FLY in the ointment is that doing such a thing as you posit in your hypothetical will immediately result in an impeachment in the House and removal from office in the Senate irrespective of which party is in power. The power and authority are there. The reality is that it is not usable without catastrophic consequences. In essence, attempting to cover up your offenses by the lawful use of power will convict you of those offenses anyway.

To sum up:

Your position is based on a lie which you then use to promote a hypothetical which has 2 clear, distinct, and separate errors in both logic and reason.

Repeatedly restating that position in the face of being shown those facts several times in a row, is stupid. Get off the hamster wheel.

 

[HisArpy]

I did not misstate Barr's testimony. I did not mischaracterize it. You're in La la land as usual

http://cdn.lowgif.com/small/d75aa8c9718bff2c-hamster-wheel-2-o-a-sales-guy.gif