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

[Rightguide]

Opps

Barr And Mueller Teams: Mueller Is Not Saying That But For Policy He Would Have Found Obstruction


https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...misinterpretations-no-conflict-on-obstruction


Further clarification, signed by DOJ and Mueller team spokesperson. Shoots down Democratic narrative.

In other words:


“The Attorney General has previously stated that the Special Counsel repeatedly affirmed that he was not saying that, but for the OLC opinion, he would have found the President obstructed justice. The Special Counsel’s report and his statement today made clear that the office concluded it would not reach a determination — one way or the other — about whether the President committed a crime. There is no conflict between these statements," a joint statement from DOJ spokeswoman Kerri Kupec and Mueller spokesman Peter Carr said.

 

[icanhelp1]

Well, second to last. And I guess the DOJ policy he refers to made prosecuting the President permanently not appropriate. So the "no crime no case, game over" question would be moot. In the case of the President, investigate, collect findings, report facts.

The Mueller report was a criminal investigation using OLC guidelines. The Russians were indicted on many counts along with Cohen and Manafort. The same document found the burden of proof not consistent with the crime of conspiracy using OLC guidelines. Trump is found not guilty of conspiracy not because you cannot indict by OLC guidelines but because the burden of proof is not there. My brain cannot wrap around the fact, that, if the intent of the investigation is satisfied how can the investigation be allowed to continue. This is a criminal investigation which has to follow legal investigative protocol. How can it be allowed to morph into a fact finding political investigation knowing OLC guidelines are in place. It seems this is where the politics of the DOJ poisoned the Mueller report The report was massaged to fit an agenda, use OLC when convenient, masking what I believe is the true intent which was to allow time to search or create a crime ( obstruction of justice ) I think Mueller should testify for two reasons 1. When did he know conspiracy was not an issue and 2. did Mueller tell Barr his findings were not in conjunction with OLC guidelines which leads to the question why was the investigation started in the first place.. Spare the Russians, that was a FISA investigation with criminal referrals which Mueller followed up on. Just my humble opinion.

 

[Adre]

IG cleared him completely, he’s back at a successful law firm. What are you doing?

Andrew Weissmann has a day job as well, dopey. That doesn't mean he has any integrity. The IG cannot and did not clear him of contempt of congress charges.

Nobody gives a fuck about contempt of Congress, including AG Barr who I assume you think possesses some integrity.

 

[Rightguide]

Nobody gives a fuck about contempt of Congress, including AG Barr who I assume you think possesses some integrity.

In the judicial community of the United States Barr has immense integrity and standing, Holder not so much; but he is quite popular with communists, liberal ideologues, and your standard ignorant ideologically driven Democrats such as yourself.

 

[Kantarii]

Sure is odd old Mueller doesn’t want to testify before Congress.

 

[Kantarii]

People are emotional. They try to massage opinion and innuendo into something it is not. You're guilty until proven innocent is rampant among the left. When the evidence does not meet the burden of proof of a crime, there is no crime, you're innocent. There's no rehashing evidence or deliberating additional opinion, it's over. Trump may be guilty in a court of opinion but you know what opinions are. On to FISA violations.

Funny thing you mentioned that. I wonder if Michael Avenatti is rethinking that now after what he tried to do with Brett Kavanaugh?

 

[jomar]

I see.

A letter to Rosenstein somehow is a job application so Trump will nominate Barr for the position of being Rosenstein's boss.

Yeah, that makes total sense... [/sarcasm]

Let's review then.

1. Barr sends an unsolicited and impeccably timed position statement on how a president can't obstruct justice.

2. Barr is hired to be the AG.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Racist Que never misses an opportunity to vent his resentment against successful black men.

Que was never really racist until his now ex-wife discovered interracial porn....
https://i.imgur.com/rbRry3s.jpg

 

[icanhelp1]

While I mostly ageee with this, here's a question for the room:

Mueller's job title was Special Councel, not Special Prosecutor. Was it ever his job to prosecute? I don't know the fine print on that.

Rosenstein's letter of instruction gave the Mueller team full prosecutorial authority, that's one of the things that make it so confusing. If you use OLC guidelines then the investigation should not have included Trump and I believe that was the original intent and then it morphed because of no adult supervision ( an AG )

 

[Rightguide]

Rosenstein's letter of instruction gave the Mueller team full prosecutorial authority, that's one of the things that make it so confusing. If you use OLC guidelines then the investigation should not have included Trump and I believe that was the original intent and then it morphed because of no adult supervision ( an AG )

And before they bring it up, the DOJ does not impanel grand juries, issue subpoenas, or hire FBI agents, to assist the Congress in impeachment investigations involving the President or any officer of the Executive Branch. Impeachment is a function by and for the House which involves its own investigators and resources.

 

[zipman]

Let's review then.

1. Barr sends an unsolicited and impeccably timed position statement on how a president can't obstruct justice.

2. Barr is hired to be the AG.

Bingo.

I wonder why he was chosen?

 

[icanhelp1]

And before they bring it up, the DOJ does not impanel grand juries, issue subpoenas, or hire FBI agents, to assist the Congress in impeachment investigations involving the President or any officer of the Executive Branch. Impeachment is a function by and for the House which involves its own investigators and resources.

That kind of my point. It appears that Mueller was a clandestine arm of the house judiciary committee, Nadler's wingman. How can that team be objective with the like's of Andrew Weissmann?

 

[Liar]

Rosenstein's letter of instruction gave the Mueller team full prosecutorial authority, that's one of the things that make it so confusing. If you use OLC guidelines then the investigation should not have included Trump and I believe that was the original intent and then it morphed because of no adult supervision ( an AG )

Well, the mandate was to investigate Russian influence, if the Trump campaign (which of course includes more people than POTUS himself) were involved, and to prosecute when appropriate. I'm not sure why that would translate into not investigating at all but fine, I guess there's a legalese argument there.

It leaves the investigation with a rather ridiculous dilemma: If you can't investigate POTUS because you can't charge POTUS, what happens if an investigation into other legit targets who are not POTUS leads to implication of POTUS? Or, as the report suggests, POTUS personally obstructed (or at least attempted to) the investigation?

Were they supposed to omit that from record?

 

[Rightguide]

That kind of my point. It appears that Mueller was a clandestine arm of the house judiciary committee, Nadler's wingman. How can that team be objective with the like's of Andrew Weissmann?

Understand as I think you do. Mueller is nothing but an arm of the ongoing, all but failing, Deep State coup d'état against the duly elected President.

Elite unelected bureaucrats of the Administrative State, Democrats, and media elites, are attempting to substitute their judgment for the electorate by demonizing and disenfranchising 63 million Americans who voted for him on the power of Russian lies, and false accusations of criminal behavior.

We are at a turning point in our history. We are either going to retain our republic of self governance, or surrender it to an unelected, ever more totalitarian administrative state, who will decide the direction of our governance. It's time for us to remember who we are and where we came from, or forget it altogether and face the inevitable socialist destruction of the machinery of freedom.

 

[icanhelp1]

Well, the mandate was to investigate Russian influence, if the Trump campaign (which of course includes more people than POTUS himself) were involved, and to prosecute when appropriate. I'm not sure why that would translate into not investigating at all but fine, I guess there's a legalese argument there.

It leaves the investigation with a rather ridiculous dilemma: If you can't investigate POTUS because you can't charge POTUS, what happens if an investigation into other legit targets who are not POTUS leads to implication of POTUS? Or, as the report suggests, POTUS personally obstructed (or at least attempted to) the investigation?

Were they supposed to omit that from record?

That's the conundrum. The investigation was, by statute, a DOJ investigation
( special counsel ). It was not intended for public consumption. The surveillance ( FISA ) portion was leaked by Comey to insure a criminal investigation and to bring on board a special counsel ( Comey's mentor, Mueller ) and stir up public scrutiny to make it impossible to be kept confidential. Sessions is recused and Rosenstein is next in line. Comey told Trump he was not under investigation in the first place and yet ends up square in the middle. If it's discovered that spoliation of evidence took place during the FISA process then the predicate for both or either investigation doesn't exist. I find it very disturbing that Mueller, being a super sleuth, did not scrutinize any of the warrant applications or look into the evidence used in the applications,if just to properly vet his own investigation. Having been exposed to the DOJ inspector general's findings and the bias found at the highest levels why it took public and congressional outcry to remove people from his team. You can't unfind findings but I wonder why a red flag didn't go up the pole and why Comey wasn't the first individual indicted for leaking classified material. This process is so convoluted. If the FISC is found to have been compromised what happens to all these people whose lives were destroyed. We found Russians interfering and indictment issued, that was the original intent but making this a public event I think hurt more than help and I can't believe I wrote that. A president is about to be impeached and we don't even know if the investigations were within the legal parameters of the constitution. Just my humble opinion.

 

[icanhelp1]

Understand as I think you do. Mueller is nothing but an arm of the ongoing, all but failing, Deep State coup d'état against the duly elected President.

Elite unelected bureaucrats of the Administrative State, Democrats, and media elites, are attempting to substitute their judgment for the electorate by demonizing and disenfranchising 63 million Americans who voted for him on the power of Russian lies, and false accusations of criminal behavior.

We are at a turning point in our history. We are either going to retain our republic of self governance, or surrender it to an unelected, ever more totalitarian administrative state, who will decide the direction of our governance. It's time for us to remember who we are and where we came from, or forget it altogether and face the inevitable socialist destruction of the machinery of freedom.

I agree 100% I could write even more about this but I'm fucking Muellered out.

 

[phrodeau]

CNN has done it again. They showed this talking head spewing lie after lie, non-stop, for a full seventeen and a half minutes.

He looked like this:

https://ktar.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/trumptalk.jpg

 

[Kantarii]

I agree 100% I could write even more about this but I'm fucking Muellered out.

Don’t feel bad. I bet Robert Mueller is Murllered out, too

 

[HisArpy]

Let's review then.

1. Barr sends an unsolicited and impeccably timed position statement on how a president can't obstruct justice.

2. Barr is hired to be the AG.

So your argument is basically the conspiracy theory found here:

Last month, news broke that in June 2018, President Trump’s current nominee for attorney general, William P. Barr, sent an unsolicited 20-page memo to the Justice Department

The fact that Barr sent Trump this memo, and may have subsequently been rewarded with a nomination to join Trump’s cabinet, raises serious concerns. To start, the memo’s legal theories advance an overly expansive view of presidential power.

https://www.aclu.org/blog/executive...olicited-memo-trump-about-obstruction-justice

HOWEVER:

The U.S. Justice Department has a decades-old policy that a sitting president cannot be indicted

The department reaffirmed the policy in a 2000 memo, saying court decisions in the intervening years had not changed its conclusion that a sitting president is “constitutionally immune” from indictment and criminal prosecution. It concluded that criminal charges against a president would “violate the constitutional separation of powers” delineating the authority of the executive, legislative and judicial branches of the U.S. government.

The 1973 and 2000 memos are binding on Justice Department employees,

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...president-face-criminal-charges-idUSKCN1QF1D3

Barr also said he believes a sitting President cannot be indicted. “For 40 years the position of the Executive Branch has been you can’t indict a sitting President,”

http://time.com/5505438/wiliam-barr-confirmation-hearing-attorney-general/

So, tell us, why is it that you have problems with an AG who wrote a letter affirming that he'd FOLLOW THE LAW nearly a year before he was confirmed to the position?

 

[Que]

So your argument is basically the conspiracy theory found here:




HOWEVER:





So, tell us, why is it that you have problems with an AG who wrote a letter affirming that he'd FOLLOW THE LAW nearly a year before he was confirmed to the position?

. . .not to mention the fact that that was largely the point St. Mueller was making (that they cheered) which contradicts what Barr said previously about what Mueller told him and Rosenstein when asked if that was the hindrence to not saying a crime was committed. (Mueller also affirmed contradictedly (is that a word?) that Barr's representation of the report and communications about same were kosher.

 

[jomar]

So your argument is basically the conspiracy theory found here:

HOWEVER:


So, tell us, why is it that you have problems with an AG who wrote a letter affirming that he'd FOLLOW THE LAW nearly a year before he was confirmed to the position?

The ACLU link is not the only article to cite other lawyers and legal scholars who question and disagree with the assumptions and interpretations Barr made in his memo.

As such, Barr said he'd follow his interpretation of the law that others clearly disagree with and think are wrong. Trump likes Barr's interpretation better than the other guys'.

Also, he was nominated 5 months later, then confirmed 3 months after that.

 

[cowslinger64]

The ACLU link is not the only article to cite other lawyers and legal scholars who question and disagree with the assumptions and interpretations Barr made in his memo.

As such, Barr said he'd follow his interpretation of the law that others clearly disagree with and think are wrong. Trump likes Barr's interpretation better than the other guys'.

Also, he was nominated 5 months later, then confirmed 3 months after that.

Trump could come out and say he specifically hired Barr because of the letter.. and those two dumbfucks would still have NO problem with it.


Trump was right that he could shoot someone, and not lose a voter.


Yeah sure, there's nothing to the letter he sent it.


Sound familiar?


Snip:



Particularly given Barr’s track record, as New York University professor of law Ryan Goodman wrote on Monday at the site Just Security, where he’s a co-editor in chief.

Goodman, who is a former Defense Department special counsel, details a remarkably similar fight from 1989 in which Barr, then head of the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, was involved. The O.L.C. had determined that the F.B.I. was allowed to take people into custody in foreign countries without the consent of those countries’ governments—a ruling that seemed to pave the way, Goodman notes, for the eventual arrest of former Panamanian leader Manuel Antonio Noriega.

This was a contentious position to take, and Barr was asked to provide the memo offering the detailed legal rationale for allowing such detentions. He declined, instead offering a 13-page document that “summarizes the principal conclusions.” When Congress, and then The Washington Post, obtained the full opinion in 1991, it was quickly noted that several conclusions from the full document hadn’t been included in Barr’s summary. Foremost among them was that the opinion authorized the president of the United States to ignore the United Nations Charter.


https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2019/04/william-barr-mueller-report-summary

 

[jomar]

Trump could come out and say he specifically hired Barr because of the letter.. and those two dumbfucks would still have NO problem with it.

Trump was right that he could shoot someone, and not lose a voter.

The Cult of Trump is fascinating in a wtf kind of way.

 

[Rightguide]

This should tell you something about the author of the Dossier:


Christopher Steele won’t cooperate with John Durham review of Russia investigation
by Jerry Dunleavy
May 28, 2019 05:13 PM

Christopher Steele, author of the dossier that played a key role in the Trump-Russia inquiry, will not assist Attorney General William Barr’s investigation of the investigators, according to a new report.

A source close to Orbis Business Intelligence, which is Steele’s investigative firm, told Reuters that the British ex-spy “would not cooperate” with nor answer questions from U.S. Attorney John Durham, whom Barr has tasked with reviewing the origins of the counterintelligence investigation into President Trump's presidential campaign and the way that the Justice Department and FBI conducted the inquiry.

This revelation comes days after Trump’s order stating Barr was given “full and complete authority to declassify information” and ordering the intelligence community “to quickly and fully cooperate with the Attorney General’s investigation into surveillance activities during the 2016 presidential election.” Barr said he picked Durham because he “was looking for someone who is tenacious, who is used to looking at sensitive material involving government activities, who has a reputation for being fair and evenhanded.”

Neither the Justice Department nor Steele’s business immediately responded to the Washington Examiner’s request for comment. Durham’s office said they had no comment at this time.

The report said Steele “might cooperate” with DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz’s independent investigation, signaling a shift in Steele’s thinking. In April, Politico reported that Steele “declined to be interviewed by the inspector general, citing, among other things, the potential impropriety of his involvement in an internal Justice Department investigation as a foreign national and former British intelligence agent.” That report said Steele might even “rebut the Inspector General’s characterizations” with a public statement.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...th-john-durham-review-of-russia-investigation

 

[cowslinger64]

This should tell you something about the author of the Dossier:


Christopher Steele won’t cooperate with John Durham review of Russia investigation
by Jerry Dunleavy
May 28, 2019 05:13 PM

Christopher Steele, author of the dossier that played a key role in the Trump-Russia inquiry, will not assist Attorney General William Barr’s investigation of the investigators, according to a new report.

A source close to Orbis Business Intelligence, which is Steele’s investigative firm, told Reuters that the British ex-spy “would not cooperate” with nor answer questions from U.S. Attorney John Durham, whom Barr has tasked with reviewing the origins of the counterintelligence investigation into President Trump's presidential campaign and the way that the Justice Department and FBI conducted the inquiry.

This revelation comes days after Trump’s order stating Barr was given “full and complete authority to declassify information” and ordering the intelligence community “to quickly and fully cooperate with the Attorney General’s investigation into surveillance activities during the 2016 presidential election.” Barr said he picked Durham because he “was looking for someone who is tenacious, who is used to looking at sensitive material involving government activities, who has a reputation for being fair and evenhanded.”

Neither the Justice Department nor Steele’s business immediately responded to the Washington Examiner’s request for comment. Durham’s office said they had no comment at this time.

The report said Steele “might cooperate” with DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz’s independent investigation, signaling a shift in Steele’s thinking. In April, Politico reported that Steele “declined to be interviewed by the inspector general, citing, among other things, the potential impropriety of his involvement in an internal Justice Department investigation as a foreign national and former British intelligence agent.” That report said Steele might even “rebut the Inspector General’s characterizations” with a public statement.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...th-john-durham-review-of-russia-investigation

How many subpoenas did Trump order his minions to ignore? How many times was he requested to testify and didn't?


Mueller on the dossier.

The White House has claimed that the investigation was based on the “Steele Dossier,” an intelligence report compiled by a former British spy and financed by the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee (DNC), which alleged that there were ties between Trump and the Kremlin. But in this footnote, Mueller explains the sequence and timing of events that gave rise to a credible threat to national security, warranting an investigation. First, Mueller notes earlier in the report that in July 2016, Wikileaks began disseminating emails stolen from the DNC. A few days later, the U.S. intelligence community assessed with “high confidence” that the Russian government had orchestrated the hack of these emails. Within a week of that release, a foreign government informed the FBI that George Papadopoulos, a foreign policy advisor to the Trump campaign, told a representative of their government that Russia had offered to “assist the campaign through the anonymous release of information that would be damaging to Hillary Clinton.” Mueller states that this information “is contained in the case-opening document and related materials.” This means that it was these facts, not the Steele Dossier, which raised an open question on whether Russia had attempted or was trying to attempt to coordinate with members of the Trump campaign to influence the 2016 presidential campaign and led to the official opening of an investigation.