Discussion of the Mueller Report

[elysiantraveller]

Originally Posted by hcap

Lindsay Graham is not the Senate thankfully.


Hold on to your tin foil hats.

But.

Her.

Emails.

Meanwhile there is a report out right now showing a President lying non-stop and ordering others to obstruct justice and they can't be bothered to read it...

Hyper-partisanship at its finest.

I'm sure this next one will be the one that "gets" her and "locks her up".

Meanwhile, as we wait, we could probably discuss the one that's currently out?

[hcap]

Originally Posted by elysiantraveller

But.

Her.

Emails.

Meanwhile there is a report out right now showing a President lying non-stop and ordering others to obstruct justice and they can't be bothered to read it...

Hyper-partisanship at its finest.

I'm sure this next one will be the one that "gets" her and "locks her up".

Meanwhile, as we wait, we could probably discuss the one that's currently out?

We must remind them of this crucial paragraph from the Mueller report....

Under applicable Supreme Court precedent, the Constitution does not categorically and permanently immunize a President for obstructing justice through the use of his Article II powers. The separation-of-powers doctrine authorizes Congress to protect official proceedings, including those of courts and grand juries, from corrupt, obstructive acts regardless of their source. We also concluded that any inroad on presidential authority that would occur from prohibiting corrupt acts does not undermine the President’s ability to fulfill his constitutional mission. The term “corruptly” sets a demanding standard. It requires a concrete showing that a person acted with an intent to obtain an improper advantage for himself or someone else, inconsistent with official duty and the rights of others. A preclusion of “corrupt” official action does not diminish the President’s ability to exercise Article II powers. For example, the proper supervision of criminal law does not demand freedom for the President to act with a corrupt intention of shielding himself from criminal punishment, avoiding financial liability, or preventing personal embarrassment. To the contrary, a statute that prohibits official action undertaken for such corrupt purposes furthers, rather than hinders, the impartial and evenhanded administration of the law. It also aligns with the President’s constitutional duty to faithfully execute the laws. Finally, we concluded that in the rare case in which a criminal investigation of the President’s conduct is justified, inquiries to determine whether the President acted for a corrupt motive should not impermissibly chili his performance of his constitutionally assigned duties. The conclusion that 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.

So much for the "Barr report"

[delayjf]

the Justice Department inspector general’s office already examined the probe into Hillary Clinton’s private email server and it discredited the conspiracy theories.

Indeed, but in recent testimony, Lisa Paged testified that the DOJ ordered the FBI to not charge Hillary with gross negligence. So its back on again.

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.

He didn't exercise his powers.

[elysiantraveller]

Originally Posted by delayjf

Indeed, but in recent testimony, Lisa Paged testified that the DOJ ordered the FBI to not charge Hillary with gross negligence. So its back on again.

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.

He didn't exercise his powers.

HOLD UP!

So the Obama DOJ bears the blame for the failure to indict Hillary but freshly installed William Barr decided his boss didn't obstruct justice and that's all fine and dandy?

Interesting standards... especially since you've admitted to not looking at the Mueller Report.

The more you talk the more partisan and inconsistent you become.

[Tom]

The more you talk the more partisan and inconsistent you become.

Ely said that???

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally Posted by elysiantraveller

NTTG has...

Finally, if you don't care you don't care. That's fine.

If your standard is being able to be charged and hauled away (It seems Mueller was punting this to Congress) then that's a far cry from squeaky clean.

This isn't Scooter Libby, Lying about Blow Jobs, or Fast and Furious... its significantly worse and much more similar to Watergate than anything.

My post was directed at NTTG and the bogus talking point he chose to bring up because he can't be bothered to read something that paints his guy in a negative light. Just like you don't seemingly care for whatever partisan reasons...

Point is the stupidity of some of these theories is easily swatted away by an existing report that 4 weeks ago was a "total exoneration" and today has proven to be anything but.

Ignorance is bliss though.

You're right. What the intelligence community did pursuing the Trump campaign and later Trump the President, and what the Hillary campaign did (with their bought and paid for "salacious dossier," is very similar to Watergate. You're definitely not wrong there.

[OntheRail]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

You're right. What the intelligence community did pursuing the Trump campaign and later Trump the President, and what the Hillary campaign did (with their bought and paid for "salacious dossier," is very similar to Watergate. You're definitely not wrong there.

Ely upon reading this....

[Tom]

Read the report.
Just......READ IT!

[elysiantraveller]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

You're right. What the intelligence community did pursuing the Trump campaign and later Trump the President, and what the Hillary campaign did (with their bought and paid for "salacious dossier," is very similar to Watergate. You're definitely not wrong there.

Did you know Carter Page was involved in a counter-intelligence operation that originally led to the arrest of two Russian Agents in 2015?

I didn't either... then I read the report.

[delayjf]

So the Obama DOJ bears the blame for the failure to indict Hillary but freshly installed William Barr decided his boss didn't obstruct justice and that's all fine and dandy?

Interesting standards... especially since you've admitted to not looking at the Mueller Report.

Your concerns regarding the number of contacts between Trump and the Russians notwithstanding, Mueller exonerated Trump and his entire administration from colluding / conspiring with the Russian attempts to medal in the 2016 election, what happens with the obstruction charges remains to be seen.

That Hillary used an illegal private server is a fact, there is no disputing that. I find it highly suspicious that she is exonerated by Comey a week after the infamous meeting on the tarmac between Bill Clinton and the AG Loretta Lynch. Now we have testimony from FBI attorney Lisa Page stating the DOJ informed the FBI that Hillary was not going to be indicted.

Regarding Carter Page, despite all the surveillance by the FBI, CIA etc over a period of some three years, He too was exonerated in the Mueller report.

I don't see a double standard at all. I want the Obama FBI, CIA, IRS, Hillary and the Clinton Foundation to undergo the same level of scrutiny that was applied to Trump.

Earlier in this thread you asked why I support Trump. The short answer is he is the one standing in the way of "fundamental transformation of this country" from a republic to a socialist democracy.

[davew]

Originally Posted by elysiantraveller

HOLD UP!

So the Obama DOJ bears the blame for the failure to indict Hillary but freshly installed William Barr decided his boss didn't obstruct justice and that's all fine and dandy?

Interesting standards... especially since you've admitted to not looking at the Mueller Report.

The more you talk the more partisan and inconsistent you become.

What did the 0bama team do to stop the Russian involvement of the election? besides spy on opponents?

[lamboguy]

Originally Posted by delayjf

Your concerns regarding the number of contacts between Trump and the Russians notwithstanding, Mueller exonerated Trump and his entire administration from colluding / conspiring with the Russian attempts to medal in the 2016 election, what happens with the obstruction charges remains to be seen.

That Hillary used an illegal private server is a fact, there is no disputing that. I find it highly suspicious that she is exonerated by Comey a week after the infamous meeting on the tarmac between Bill Clinton and the AG Loretta Lynch. Now we have testimony from FBI attorney Lisa Page stating the DOJ informed the FBI that Hillary was not going to be indicted.

Regarding Carter Page, despite all the surveillance by the FBI, CIA etc over a period of some three years, He too was exonerated in the Mueller report.

I don't see a double standard at all. I want the Obama FBI, CIA, IRS, Hillary and the Clinton Foundation to undergo the same level of scrutiny that was applied to Trump.

Earlier in this thread you asked why I support Trump. The short answer is he is the one standing in the way of "fundamental transformation of this country" from a republic to a socialist democracy.

i think if you look hard enough you are going to find that they all lie, cheat and steal. some do it better than others. they do it all over the world, and this is still the best country to live in. if you don't like Trump or any other president, vote against him the next time and make sure your vote gets counted. please lets not go through all this tremendous waste of money investigating these guys that we know right from the start are crooked to the 9's.

[elysiantraveller]

Originally Posted by delayjf

Your concerns regarding the number of contacts between Trump and the Russians notwithstanding, Mueller exonerated Trump and his entire administration from colluding / conspiring with the Russian attempts to medal in the 2016 election, what happens with the obstruction charges remains to be seen.

And that's fine. It shouldn't be prosecuted. Thank Jesus, currently, in his tomb until tomorrow, the President and his Campaign didn't enter into conspiracy with Russian agents.

Now as a follow-up question...

For two years the President has denied, denied, denied contact with Russia. When caught he has lied and made up stories about. When those stories were proven to be lies he then calls the media "fake news" when, in fact, the media was right way more often than it was not.

Finally, when being approached by people who made it clear they were representing a foreign power he and/or his staff failed to report that to the proper authorities.

This is all fine and dandy in your book?

Originally Posted by delayjf

That Hillary used an illegal private server is a fact, there is no disputing that. I find it highly suspicious that she is exonerated by Comey a week after the infamous meeting on the tarmac between Bill Clinton and the AG Loretta Lynch. Now we have testimony from FBI attorney Lisa Page stating the DOJ informed the FBI that Hillary was not going to be indicted.

That's fine.

I've said over and over again investigate away. I do not like Hillary Clinton and think she's corrupt and likely a criminal. I also happen to think that Donald Trump is corrupt and likely a criminal.

But yelling "Emails," "Tarmac," "Whatever" is merely trying to change the subject of the conversation from the criminality of Donald Trump to Hillary Clinton.

It does nothing to exonerate or argue on behalf of the President.

Originally Posted by delayjf

Regarding Carter Page, despite all the surveillance by the FBI, CIA etc over a period of some three years, He too was exonerated in the Mueller report.

He is.

I'm happy Carter Page isn't a criminal. But if we are discussing the legal reasoning for why he may be subject to a FISA Warrant all someone has to do is look at his recent history involving Russian Agents and prior surveillance.

Which is in the report.

Originally Posted by delayjf

I don't see a double standard at all. I want the Obama FBI, CIA, IRS, Hillary and the Clinton Foundation to undergo the same level of scrutiny that was applied to Trump.

It is a complete double standard if you are accusing the DOJ of effectively ending the possibility of indicting Clinton as being corrupt but buying wholesale the current DOJ/AG stifling the possible impeachment/indictment of Donald Trump

Originally Posted by delayjf

Earlier in this thread you asked why I support Trump. The short answer is he is the one standing in the way of "fundamental transformation of this country" from a republic to a socialist democracy.

This is bait.

[elysiantraveller]

Originally Posted by davew

What did the 0bama team do to stop the Russian involvement of the election? besides spy on opponents?

What did Team Trump do to stop Russian involvement in the election?

They were, after all, the ones being contacted constantly by them throughout the Spring/Summer/Fall of 2016.

YouTube

We can play the "what if" game all day long...

[Greyfox]

Originally Posted by elysiantraveller

But yelling "Emails," "Tarmac," "Whatever" is merely trying to change the subject of the conversation from the criminality of Donald Trump to Hillary Clinton.

Stop right there ely.
Trump may be an unethical narcissistic asshole businessman, but you are going too far to call him a "criminal" unless you have evidence that warrants that.