Robert Mueller, Former F.B.I. Director, Is Named Special Counsel for Russia Investigation

Do they still have it?

 

Pretty much the entirety of Volume I Section II refutes your claim in detail.

https://apps.npr.org/documents/document.html?id=5955997-Muellerreport

 

301/ So it's confirmed: Don Jr. *did* tell a Kremlin agent, in Trump Tower, in the midst of the campaign, that if Trump was elected he'd revisit the question of sanctions (i.e. take another look at Obama's policy). So the Kremlin got what it wanted—a promise to revisit sanctions.
302/ And SDNY says the woman Don Jr. made that promise to was not only a Kremlin agent but a criminal:
303/ Holy cow—Veselnitskaya also tried to get to Erik Prince's friends in the Rohrabacher delegation that went to Moscow in 2016. This suggests the beginning of Kremlin efforts to get information to Trump was April 2016—not, as we thought, June 2016. Much more to explore on this.

 

So Nixon was not but almost impeached over the obstruction of Justice part of Watergate. Clinton was impeached over the obstruction of justice part Whitewater, yet only now in Trump's case does the obstruction fo justice not really matter. That stuff doesn't matter.

It doesn't matter that the person you are supporting and defending was spared in part because his subordinates knew he was so wrong they wouldn't follow his orders. What does that say about Trump? Why is that worthy of patting yourselves on the back?

Furthermore, have you read this report? Trump is not clear in collusion department. Even Trump himself agrees. It is why he claimed the investigation would end his presidency. People who have done nothing wrong don't say that. We know that ignorance is no excuse, and even in the report, the best clearance Trump's team gets is that they may not have known they were breaking the law. That is hardly someone getting out squeaky clean.

 

326/ Trump's Deputy Campaign Manager was secretly sending a Kremlin agent proprietary internal campaign polling data throughout the presidential campaign.

At a time the Kremlin needed hard data to target its propaganda campaign.

334/ Whoa... Manafort lied to the feds about whether he discussed *election targeting* with the Kremlin. Apparently he did.

There is *zero* fuzz on the question of why he lied. This goes directly to collusion broadly writ.

 

361/ I'm speechless... [Erik] Prince was *directly conveying messages from the transition to a Kremlin agent* on foreign policy—Libya—while Trump *wasn't in office*. So much illegality on the part of so many people here. And Prince lied about *every* *single* *piece of it*.365/ We now know that not only did Mueller seize Prince's computers/phones, he interviewed him. And that interview must have revealed that Prince lied to Congress—repeatedly.

366/ Wow... Mueller reveals that *Prince and Bannon told him diametrically opposed stories*, meaning either Prince was committing a crime in lying to law enforcement or Trump's campaign CEO was. How is this not *front-page news* across America right now? These are *known crimes*.

 

What the hell?

 

Are you?

I think it's safe to say that the person who was deemed 'most qualified' (Mueller) did the investigation himself and determined there was no collusion by law.

Why don't you want to agree with the guy who knows more than anyone else considering he led an over 20 million dollar investigation into the matter? Until someone else just as qualified who has spent more than 20 million looking into it determines otherwise I got to go with his conclusion of no collusion.

 

Here are just a few of the reasons why I find baffling the excitement trump supporters are exhibiting here after the release of the Mueller Report. It is clear to me that the report was not an exoneration of trump, but rather the opposite. Mueller felt constrained by DOJ policy not to indict a sitting president and intended his report and the supporting evidence to go to Congress so that Congress could chose what course to follow, which could include impeachment, which Mueller mentions in his report. I'll add that Mueller referred 14 different subjects for investigation because they were outside the narrow purview he was given, 12 of which Barr redacted, so we do not know what those are. I'll also add that Barr is acting like he is trump's personal attorney, which is outrageous. This morning, Barr distorted and outright lied about the Mueller Report.

From BBC.com

no vindication on obstruction
On potential obstruction of justice, the Mueller report is far from the "total exoneration" claimed by Mr Trump during a victory lap last month.

The report ultimately concludes: "Unlike cases in which a subject engages in obstruction of justice to cover up a crime, the evidence we obtained did not establish that the President was involved in an underlying crime related to Russian election interference."

But it also pointedly notes:

"If we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, however, we are unable to reach that judgment. The evidence we obtained about the President'sactions and intent presents difficult issues that prevent us from conclusively determining that no criminal conduct occurred."

While the report acknowledges a sitting president cannot be indicted, it also mentions Congress' ability to investigate and potentially impeach him.

It says: "Congress may apply the obstruction laws to the President's corrupt exercise of the powers of office accords with our constitutional system of checks and balances and the principle that no person is above the law."


How else Trump tried to influence inquiry

The report cites 10 instances that were investigated as potential obstruction by Mr Trump.

Most have already been well documented, such as Mr Trump's firing of FBI Director James Comey.

But the findings also validate past US media reports that were denied at the time by the White House.

When Mr Trump learned the media was asking questions about a June 2016 meeting at Trump Tower between senior campaign officials, including Donald Trump Jr, and a Russian lawyer who was said to be promising "dirt" on Hillary Clinton, the president crafted a misleading response, says the report:

"Before the emails became public, the President edited a press statement for Trump Jr by deleting a line that acknowledged that the meeting was with 'an individual who [Trump Jr] was told might have information helpful to the campaign' and instead said only that the meeting was about adoptions of Russian children."

Mr Trump also asked former campaign manager Corey Lewandowski to get Attorney General Jeff Sessions to announce publicly that the investigation was "very unfair" and Mr Trump had done nothing wrong, says the report.

After Jeff Sessions recused himself from the Russia investigation, leaving an enraged Mr Trump feeling that he was losing control of the inquiry, the president pressed his attorney general that if he would only "unrecuse" himself he would be the "hero".

Refusal to 'carry out orders'
The Mueller report found that potential obstruction of justice by the president only failed because members of his administration refused to "carry out orders", including former FBI Director James Comey, former White House counsel Don McGahn and former campaign manager Corey Lewandowksi.

In one unflattering passage, the document says:

"The President's efforts to influence the investigation were mostly unsuccessful, but that is largely because the persons who surrounded the President declined to carry out orders or accede to his requests. Comey did not end the investigation of Flynn, which ultimately resulted in Flynn's prosecution and conviction for lying to the FBI. McGahn did not tell the Acting Attorney General that the Special Counsel must be removed, but was instead prepared to resign over the President's order. Lewandowski and Dearborn did not deliver the President's message to Sessions that he should confine the Russia investigation to future election meddling only. And McGahn refused to recede from his recollections about events surrounding the President's direction to have the Special Counsel removed, despite the President's multiple demands that he do so. Consistent with that pattern, the evidence we obtained would not support potential obstruction charges against the President's aides and associates beyond those already filed."

'Inadequate written answers'
Close followers of the Mueller saga may recall that in January 2018 at the White House, President Trump told reporters that he was "looking forward" to sitting down for an interview with Mr Mueller, that he would "love to do that as soon as possible", and boasted he would do so under oath.

But in the event, the report notes, "after more than a year of discussion, the President declined to be interviewed".

He agreed to submit written answers to the special counsel's questions to Russia-related matters, but declined to "provide written answers to questions on obstruction topics or questions on events during his transition", the report notes.

The Mueller report states: "Recognizing that the President would not be interviewed voluntarily, we considered whether to subpoena for his testimony. We viewed his written answers to be inadequate."

But the Mueller team said they ultimately decided not to subpoena Mr Trump because of the likelihood of litigation would cause a substantial delay at a late stage in the inquiry.

 

379/ Here's what I'm not hearing anyone say: Mueller was able to make out (but not indict) a prima facie ("on its face") case of obstruction because the witnesses on *that* issue preserved evidence and told the truth.
The conspiracy witnesses lied and destroyed evidence. Period.

380/ Moreover, whereas Mueller had a "forgiving" charge, in obstruction—i.e. you don't have to successfully obstruct, merely intend to, so it's easier to prove—he *hamstrung* himself by investigating conspiracy when he should have been looking for bribery and aiding and abetting.

381/ If Mueller investigates bribery and aiding and abetting, not conspiracy—and if the witnesses in that case preserve evidence and don't lie to the feds—it's clear the story they would've told would have been a "prima facie" case of impeachable bribery and aiding and abetting.

382/ So now you ask, "Why did the witnesses in the obstruction case preserve evidence and tell the truth?" The answer: they were either (a) law enforcement witnesses, *or* (b) people who knew that, even if he were caught obstructing, the Senate would *never* impeach Trump for it.

383/ By comparison, everyone *knew* that the Senate would *have* to impeach Trump for any *collusive* crime—conspiracy, bribery, money laundering, aiding and abetting, you name it—so *those* witnesses, who were the very *worst* characters in all this, lied and destroyed evidence.

384/ But here's the rub: they didn't get away with it. They didn't get away with it because the Senate *must* impeach Trump if there's substantial enough evidence Trump is compromised to create a *national security threat*. And we *do* have that evidence. In spades. From Mueller.

385/ So this is where I reveal that I don't give a damn about Vol. 2 of the Mueller Report. Why? It's a red herring. *Everyone knows* Trump obstructed justice. We knew it *a year ago*. And *everyone knows the Senate will ignore any and all evidence of obstruction*. We *all* know.

387/ Vol. 1 *is* the ballgame. It establishes that Trump's crew told so many lies and destroyed so much evidence and has so many ties to Russia they refuse to explain that Trump's foreign policy is compromised *at the level of proof required for a national security impeachment*.

390/ So the case that Trump is a national security threat has been made—amply—at the level needed for impeachment. But Barr has managed to keep even more evidence from us; and the media doesn't know how to discuss it; and America hasn't been *prepared* for this topic. Not at all.

394/ There's a reason the counterintelligence cases against Trump are ongoing. There's a reason Barr wouldn't let us see so much of what we need to see because of "GRAND JURY" or "INVESTIGATIVE TECHNIQUE" redaction—*he* knows that that's the danger to Trump here, not obstruction.

395/ Every time Trump lied; every time his family or aides covered for him by lying about what he knew; every time he created—willfully—a pressure point for Russia to press upon; every secret meeting his team set up and tried to hide; *all* of this provided Putin with blackmail.

 

He did beat her like you said, but this report doesn't have anything to do with that.

 

Conservatives haven't been this blindsided since liberal Lincoln won the election...

 

Just lmao at the liberals trying to double down on this. They just hate the feeling of being proven wrong, and they have their liberal media who is happy to raise conspiracy theories to fit their narrative, gain more viewers and hence more ad revenues. When will the left realize the media is playing them? Trayvon Martin, Duke Lacrosse, Eric Garner (mr I can’t breathe), maga hat kid at Native American event, Russian collusion...all proven wrong.

 

Speaking of shitposting

http://bbs.clutchfans.net/index.php...ch-was-emailing-with-wikileaks.282885/page-10

I enjoy this reality where posting facts is shitposting but posting dumbass conspiracies by Trump enablers is the norm from certain people.

 

I wasn't making the judgment.

I do agree with Mueller. Collusion isn't a crime. What Mueller said was that it was likely that Trump's campaign personnel didn't know they were committing a crime. That doesn't mean there was no collusion.

 

Pretty much everyone tries to influence each others' elections. If you think we don't you are mistaken. Move on from it. I am sure other countries did too.

 

Look how easy the sheep will sell out thier country for thier tribe.

 

Not at all. I don't think Russia had a very strong effect on the election at all and good luck proving it actually swung anything. Russia is a scapegoat for the failings of the DNC and the shoddy campaign by Clinton.

 

Certain posters before the report came out: “The report completely exonerates Trump. Eat it liberals! What a waste of time that was. I can’t believe they started an investigation into Trump based on nothing. “

*Report comes out and clearly does not exonerate Trump. It literally takes ignoring the report to come to the conclusion that Trump is exonerated.*

Same posters as before: “See, Trump clearly exonerated! Man it feels good to be right. Eat it liberals!”

Literally nobody brings up Hilary Clinton: “Now that we know Clinton lost fair and square can y’all stop bringing up how she lost the election based on Russian interference that didn’t happen or if it did didn’t even affect anything!”

This really feels like a twilight zone episode. I mean I can’t fathom how anyone could come away from reading the report feeling better about Trump and on top of that double down on verifiably wrong conclusions. It’s getting embarrassing.

 

What part of the report are people missing? You're fooling yourself if you think there is anything but shade being thrown at this point. Triple down on it why don't you.