Robert Mueller reportedly tells Trump’s lawyers president not criminal target

originally posted by: soberbacchus

originally posted by: yuppa
a reply to: soberbacchus


unless you have trump saying he fired comey to impede the investigation intentionally this isnt anything.

“When I decided to just do it I said to myself, I said, ‘You know, this Russia thing with Trump and Russia is a made-up story.’”

www.vox.com...

Does not prove he wanted to disrupt the investigation though. Did he SPECIFICALLY STATE he was doing it to disrupt the investigation. Just firing comey after he LIED was not obstruction. I fthe investigation would had stopped you might had had a case for it bu tthe Investigation went on without a hitch.

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: soberbacchus

originally posted by: yuppa
a reply to: soberbacchus


unless you have trump saying he fired comey to impede the investigation intentionally this isnt anything.

“When I decided to just do it I said to myself, I said, ‘You know, this Russia thing with Trump and Russia is a made-up story.’”

www.vox.com...

I fthe investigation would had stopped you might had had a case for it bu tthe Investigation went on without a hitch.

Again, for the billionth time.

People are only convicted or charged with obstructing justice when their efforts to obstruct justice have failed (thus the charge).

If they were successful in obstructing justice, they would never be charged.

An investigation does not need to be impeded for someone to be charged with Obstruction of Justice.

It is the attempt itself that defines the charge.

None of the information in Mueller's investigations will lead to prosecution of Trump! To begin with, the information attained is "fruit of the poisonous tree" meaning it was done by Rosenstein who has broaden the investigation to include all things Trump.

The original reasons for the special council was "collusion". There is not law that covers collusion. Collusion is not a crime! This makes all other investigational findings fruit of the poisonous tree. The widening of the special prosecutor's by Rosenstein is invalid.

This whole investigation is nothing but a smoke screen to cover for the misdeeds of the DOJ, FBI, CIA and DOS. At best, it is the first attempt coup against a dully elected president. If a crime has been committed, it was by the people doing the investigation and it's called treason! This may extend to the former president...then all gloves will be off.

a reply to: soberbacchus


Nope. not seeing it.

originally posted by: soberbacchus

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: soberbacchus

originally posted by: yuppa
a reply to: soberbacchus


unless you have trump saying he fired comey to impede the investigation intentionally this isnt anything.

“When I decided to just do it I said to myself, I said, ‘You know, this Russia thing with Trump and Russia is a made-up story.’”

www.vox.com...

I fthe investigation would had stopped you might had had a case for it bu tthe Investigation went on without a hitch.

Again, for the billionth time.

People are only convicted or charged with obstructing justice when their efforts to obstruct justice have failed (thus the charge).

If they were successful in obstructing justice, they would never be charged.

An investigation does not need to be impeded for someone to be charged with Obstruction of Justice.

It is the attempt itself that defines the charge.

Firing Comey is not obstruction.
Nixon firing the special counsel, where his intent was to stop the investigation into himself, was obstruction.

A city council firing a police chief does not obstruct any investigations for that department. The same holds for Comey who himself stated he serves at the pleasure of the President and stated he can be terminated without cause.

Comey, as head of the FBI, is administrative. He was not a field agent / investigator. Even McCabe confirmed there was no impediments to their ongoing witch hunt, err investigation.

originally posted by: yuppa
a reply to: soberbacchus


Nope. not seeing it.

Looks like Mueller and his investigators / prosecutors are intentionally slow walking his investigation to give Democrats a chance in the midterm elections. Since MUeller also said he was documenting everything Trump did during his presidency sounds a lot like another dossier for use in 2020 elections.

I think this is also why the DOJ/FBI are refusing to release documents subpoenaed by Congress regarding Clinton / Obama / Obama Admin corruption.

It looks more like Mueller is securing a coverup for the last admin on top of trying to illegally remove a lawfully elected President.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Your point number one and two seem to be accurate at this time.

Especially Point number 2 regarding the doj FBI.

Manafort challenges evidence seized by Mueller

Nothing like the FBI illegally entering property and looking around only to file for a search warrant the following day to go back with a warrant to seize stuff.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
Manafort challenges evidence seized by Mueller

Nothing like the FBI illegally entering property and looking around only to file for a search warrant the following day to go back with a warrant to seize stuff.

there were a few around here that told us these filings would already be thrown out

seems both still stand....

originally posted by: Xcathdra
Manafort challenges evidence seized by Mueller

Nothing like the FBI illegally entering property and looking around only to file for a search warrant the following day to go back with a warrant to seize stuff.

First warrant was FISA, Second Warrant old fashioned criminal investigation.

Nothing Illegal about either.

originally posted by: shooterbrody

originally posted by: Xcathdra
Manafort challenges evidence seized by Mueller

Nothing like the FBI illegally entering property and looking around only to file for a search warrant the following day to go back with a warrant to seize stuff.

there were a few around here that told us these filings would already be thrown out

seems both still stand....

Judge skewers Manafort's civil case challenging Mueller's powers

“I don’t really understand what is left of your case,” U.S. District Court Judge Amy Berman Jackson said to Kevin Downing, Manafort’s attorney, after peppering him with a lengthy series of questions

www.reuters.com...

a reply to: soberbacchus

yes they need manafort to get trump so even if h eis correct manafort is screwed unless trump grants him a pardon. judges ignoring laws when its th efeds doing it.

originally posted by: soberbacchus

originally posted by: Xcathdra
Manafort challenges evidence seized by Mueller

Nothing like the FBI illegally entering property and looking around only to file for a search warrant the following day to go back with a warrant to seize stuff.

First warrant was FISA, Second Warrant old fashioned criminal investigation.

Nothing Illegal about either.

If the FISA warrant was obtained through illegal means then both warrant were "fruit of the poisonous tree" therefore illegal.

originally posted by: buddah6

originally posted by: soberbacchus

originally posted by: Xcathdra
Manafort challenges evidence seized by Mueller

Nothing like the FBI illegally entering property and looking around only to file for a search warrant the following day to go back with a warrant to seize stuff.

First warrant was FISA, Second Warrant old fashioned criminal investigation.

Nothing Illegal about either.

If the FISA warrant was obtained through illegal means then both warrant were "fruit of the poisonous tree" therefore illegal.

No.
Two separate investigations.
Two separate probable causes.
Two different Warrants, Two different Judges approval, Two different sets of evidence etc. etc.

If it was fruit of the tree, there would have been only one warrant.

a reply to: soberbacchus

From where is your information comming from? Do you have a source that we are missing? You are stating the requirements for obtaining the warrants but not the source of the information.

originally posted by: buddah6
a reply to: soberbacchus

From where is your information comming from? Do you have a source that we are missing? You are stating the requirements for obtaining the warrants but not the source of the information.

Edit to correct error.
I thought the first search was FISA as per another poster, it wasn't. Neither was.
More here: www.politico.com...

originally posted by: soberbacchus

originally posted by: Xcathdra
Manafort challenges evidence seized by Mueller

Nothing like the FBI illegally entering property and looking around only to file for a search warrant the following day to go back with a warrant to seize stuff.

First warrant was FISA, Second Warrant old fashioned criminal investigation.

Nothing Illegal about either.

When you judge shop to get your warrant approved their is.

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: soberbacchus

originally posted by: Xcathdra
Manafort challenges evidence seized by Mueller

Nothing like the FBI illegally entering property and looking around only to file for a search warrant the following day to go back with a warrant to seize stuff.

First warrant was FISA, Second Warrant old fashioned criminal investigation.

Nothing Illegal about either.

When you judge shop to get your warrant approved their is.

Prove that they "judge shopped"
Then please link me to the Code in US law that makes asking a judge to sign a warrant illegal.

originally posted by: soberbacchus

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: soberbacchus

originally posted by: Xcathdra
Manafort challenges evidence seized by Mueller

Nothing like the FBI illegally entering property and looking around only to file for a search warrant the following day to go back with a warrant to seize stuff.

First warrant was FISA, Second Warrant old fashioned criminal investigation.

Nothing Illegal about either.

When you judge shop to get your warrant approved their is.

Prove that they "judge shopped"
Then please link me to the Code in US law that makes asking a judge to sign a warrant illegal.

No problem...

The warrants are all signed by different judges. Instead of going back to the judge who signed off on the warrant, who would be familiar with the ins and outs of the case, they intentionally went to a different judge who was not as knowledgeable because they didnt know about the first sign off by another judge.

When you intentionally omit information that is relevant to a warrant application it is a fraud on the court.

Now the law you requested -
Bulloch vs. United States - The US supreme court ruled on what constitutes a fraud on the court by an officer of the court and who the standards apply to (all court officers - IE judges, prosecutors, defense attorneys, subject matter experts (law enforcement) etc).

When a fraud on the court is committed any and all rulings related to the case are void. The perpetrator can be charged with making a false sworn statement / written declaration. They also face contempt charges and disbarment.

The legal remedy in this instance is the actions taken by the court, like warrants issued etc, become void. The actions cannot be nullified as it says the actions were valid when in reality they werent. So scotus directed courts to view the actions as void.

The legal recourse errors on the side of the accused by voiding everything related to the case / prosecution.

Doesn't matter who signed off on it. If Mueller said he is not a criminal suspect then there is no reason to take the files from his lawyer. The only way that can happen is if the client and the lawyer are doing 'criminal activity' together. He says he is not....

It is a f'n joke...