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

for reporting people to the FBI for lying to Congress in a sworn testimony? You don't even know who he referred or about what and you scream foul play........

 

Its Devin ****ing Nunes.

No I don't know who or what he referred....but he hasn't earned the benefit of the doubt.

 

You are posting absolute crap, and either you are well aware of that fact, or you are in possession of a level of intelligence and honesty even lower than you have heretofore exhibited. How you can live with yourself, seemingly bent on supporting an assault on our democracy by those you clearly admire, is a mystery to me.

 

I dont understand the outrage. If everything was on the up and up then that will bear itself it out.

 

If you don't understand what is wrong with tinpot dictatorships trying to jail political opponents, then that isn't something I can fix.

 

We both know those Fisa warrants werent done by the book. If you are ok with that, then its all good.

 

I haven't seen any real evidence that they weren't done by the book. I have seen some false claims that have been shown to be off base. I do absolutely believe there is a problem if they weren't handled correctly. I would even be in favor of tightening the process required for FISA warrants to be obtained. But if a Democrat candidate suggested that, they would be called weak on terrorism.

 

You guys are still repeating the FISA nonsense?

I thought that propaganda had completed its usefulness cycle.

 

Which FISA warrants? The ones that were renewed three times, and approved by three different FISA Court judges (all appointed by Chief Justice Roberts)? All that would have had to present not only the original justification for the warrant, abut all new information from continuing investigation to justify their renewal?

You should join the hat conspiracy crowd...

 

Good call, Doug. Bring Mueller in and let him testify. Who believes that Nadler will support this kind of transparency? Anyone?

Top Republican calls on Nadler to have Mueller testify

Rep. Doug Collins (R-Ga.) in a letter on Monday called on Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) to seek Mueller's testimony, rather than going after Attorney General William Barr, arguing that this is the best path to obtaining transparency.

"If you seek both transparency and for the American public to learn the full contours of the Special Counsel’s investigation, public testimony from Special Counsel Mueller himself is undoubtedly the best way to accomplish this goal," Collins wrote to Nadler.

"To that end, Special Counsel Mueller should be invited to testify before the Committee during the week of April 22. Although the House is expected to be in recess that week, I think we can agree this business is too important to wait, and Members of the Committee will surely return to Washington at such a critical moment in our country’s history," Collins continued.​

 

LOL... lets ask him:

 

And adds a "gotcha" to the trump defenders...

 

Let's watch and see if Nadler and the Democrats try to find a way to squirm out of it.

 

You think getting testimony instead of the report is some kind of "transparency"? Get both.

 

So you are advocating for grand jury testimony to be published, which is against the law for very good reason. And we know why that is.

 

If they are found to have lied to congress should they not face justice?

 

Actually, it is my personal position that the Mueller Report should not be released to the general public (who perhaps can be given a redacted version), but only shared with Congress, along with the collected evidence. And we know why that is -- it's because I think the only body empowered to make a decision about any culpability on the president's part for high crimes is the Congress and that they should be afforded any and all relevant evidence so they can make a wise and informed decision on the subject. If there are issues with doing this in accordance with the law, I'd think our top law-making body and our top law-enforcement body should be able to figure it out.

 

I think it was an NPR podcast or 538 podcast that had a legal expert stating that if the delays in releasing the report to the public had to do with grand jury redactions, that wouldn't make any sense as that takes only a couple of days to redact and that Mueller in his report probably has already done it.

Basically something isn't adding up if their claim of taking weeks to redact is only for grand jury redactions.

 

As you know very well, these people in Congress leak like an open ended garden hose turned on full blast.

No, Janet Reno got it right with this procedure, as virtually everyone agreed, until Trump came along and they decided they wanted to take him down, literally by any means possible. In this case, Congress should interview both Mueller and Barr, raking them over the coals as thoroughly as possible, with both of those two maintaining the appropriate levels of confidentiality under the law. This will enable them to figure out if there was any criminal actions that were hidden by Barr that should have been disclosed.

If there were any substantial criminal complaints that were not disclosed, then they should be disclosed and Barr should be held accountable. But if the real complaint here is that Barr is refusing to feed the Democrats witch hunt against one of their political adversaries, then everyone who is supportive of that, whether they are willing to admit it or not, can just go F themselves. Case closed.