Progressive groups plan nationwide protests over Mueller report release

a reply to: CriticalStinker

If you and we can agree that the FISA warrants and the dossier (which precipitated all of this) was brought about by false means, then anything in the report is just fruit from the poisoned tree and inadmissible as evidence in any wrong-doing.

Or are we all beyond that and we just want to say "words" before the lynch mob hangs Trump?

What more is there to know ?

The Obama administration,and his party, his sycophants in the FBI,DOJ colluded and paid main stream journalists to manufacture this farce because Team left didn't cheat good enough. (Rigged primaries,debates,voting).

I can say with ALL certainity the people that want the 'report' release won't even read the snip.

a reply to: DBCowboy

Excellent DB Cowboy!!!!!!!!!!! That's why the Dem's reason to have the entire report released. It will show that many are guilty but if released they are off the hook and INNOCENT as a result of their rights being violated!

Goal Damm

a reply to: joemoe

It needs to answer the questions about obstruction of justice which Mueller declined to find on. Probably because he follows the rules about sitting presidents being indicted.
They said the investigation does not exonerate the president. Like I said not a crime doesn't mean not impeachable.
A BJ is not a crime and apparently lying to the american people isnt either but Clinton faced the people and if trump is compromised we need to know about it.

a reply to: UKTruth

You have no right to see investigative details. Your taxes paid for an investigator to investigate whether there had been a crime. There wasn't. A special counsel reports findings to the DoJ. The DoJ decides whether to take things further. If they do not bring any charges, that is the end of it.

You trust them now with redacted information?

I'm always about more information when the government is using their power to meddle in politics and then hide it.

I don't hum a different tune only when it fits my agenda.

We have spies all over the world and exposing these people could put a target on their head or jeopardize what they are working on. Unlike what WAPO writes, an unnamed source, that report includes names of the sources. So if the left feels we should have to give all sources, then I think all News agencies should be required to give the names of all sources in their articles. That is fair, just change the laws to say this applies to everyone.

a reply to: DBCowboy

If you and we can agree that the FISA warrants and the dossier (which precipitated all of this) was brought about by false means, then anything in the report is just fruit from the poisoned tree and inadmissible as evidence in any wrong-doing.

Wouldn't it show the wrong doing in this case?

Barr said there was no Russian collusion, but shouldn't we get to see the extent of our McCarthyian government will go to get what they want?

I honestly think this would help Trump and his base more than it would hurt both or either... And that doesn't really matter to me either way.

I just want to know the truth, that's it. Include the FISA stuff with it, include the names of who cleared all of this. I want to see it all.

originally posted by: Waterglass
This is now starting to get a little bit out of hand. So MSM and others, just go on and keep bitching and disrupting a sovereign nation and our rule of law.

The Republicans are such a bunch of cry babies. Pure hyperbole drivel. If you do not like what MSM is saying turn the channel dial.

a reply to: CriticalStinker

The report was written by democrats who wanted Hillary to win and Mueller who signed off on Hillary's UraniumOne deal.

The report will not say anything nice or good about Trump.

They just couldn't dig up any dirt worth leaking and ousting him that way.

Remember? This was the "Insurance Policy" to oust Trump and seat Hillary or Pence.

a reply to: rickymouse

That didn't seem to be a problem when it came to the disastrous Nunes Memo but now its an issue?

The rules just keep changing to suit the situation huh?

originally posted by: neo96
What more is there to know ?

The Obama administration,and his party, his sycophants in the FBI,DOJ colluded and paid main stream journalists to manufacture this farce

For something that was manufactured there sure have been a lot of indictments:

"The full list of Mueller indictments and plea deals

1) George Papadopoulos, former Trump campaign foreign policy adviser, was arrested in July 2017 and pleaded guilty in October 2017 to making false statements to the FBI. He got a 14-day sentence.

2) Paul Manafort, Trump’s former campaign chair, was indicted on a total of 25 different counts by Mueller’s team, related mainly to his past work for Ukrainian politicians and his finances. He had two trials scheduled, and the first ended in a conviction on eight counts of financial crimes. To avert the second trial, Manafort struck a plea deal with Mueller in September 2018 (though Mueller’s team said in November that he breached that agreement by lying to them). He was sentenced to a combined seven and a half years in prison.

3) Rick Gates, a former Trump campaign aide and Manafort’s longtime junior business partner, was indicted on similar charges to Manafort. But in February 2018 he agreed to a plea deal with Mueller’s team, pleading guilty to just one false statements charge and one conspiracy charge.

4) Michael Flynn, Trump’s former national security adviser, pleaded guilty in December 2017 to making false statements to the FBI.

5-20) 13 Russian nationals and three Russian companies were indicted on conspiracy charges, with some also being accused of identity theft. The charges related to a Russian propaganda effort designed to interfere with the 2016 campaign. The companies involved are the Internet Research Agency, often described as a “Russian troll farm,” and two other companies that helped finance it. The Russian nationals indicted include 12 of the agency’s employees and its alleged financier, Yevgeny Prigozhin.

21) Richard Pinedo: This California man pleaded guilty to an identity theft charge in connection with the Russian indictments, and has agreed to cooperate with Mueller. He was sentenced to 6 months in prison and 6 months of home detention in October 2018.

22) Alex van der Zwaan: This London lawyer pleaded guilty to making false statements to the FBI about his contacts with Rick Gates and another unnamed person based in Ukraine. He was sentenced to 30 days in jail and has completed his sentence.

23) Konstantin Kilimnik: This longtime business associate of Manafort and Gates, who’s currently based in Russia, was charged alongside Manafort with attempting to obstruct justice by tampering with witnesses in Manafort’s pending case last year.

24-35) 12 Russian GRU officers: These officers of Russia’s military intelligence service were charged with crimes related to the hacking and leaking of leading Democrats’ emails in 2016.

36) Michael Cohen: In August 2018, Trump’s former lawyer pleaded guilty to 8 counts — tax and bank charges, related to his finances and taxi business, and campaign finance violations — related to hush money payments to women who alleged affairs with Donald Trump, as part of a separate investigation in New York (that Mueller had handed off). But in November, he made a plea deal with Mueller too, for lying to Congress about efforts to build a Trump Tower in Moscow.

37) Roger Stone: In January 2019, Mueller indicted longtime Trump adviser Roger Stone on 7 counts. He accused Stone of lying to the House Intelligence Committee about his efforts to get in touch with WikiLeaks during the campaign, and tampering with a witness who could have debunked his story.

Finally, there is one other person Mueller initially investigated, but handed over to others in the Justice Department to charge: Sam Patten. This Republican operative and lobbyist pleaded guilty to not registering as a foreign agent with his work for Ukrainian political bigwigs, and agreed to cooperate with the government."

a reply to: UKTruth

No we only know that Mueller declined to prosecute. We do not know why and it could very well be the DOJ rule about indicting a sitting president. So yeah we need to see it all.
Or this argument continues into infinity....

a reply to: joemoe

It didnt before I dont see why it would now.

a reply to: dfnj2015

For something that was manufactured there sure have been a lot of indictments:

Any against Trump for rigging the election or colluding with Russia.

Ip so facto.

Your argument is invalid.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
You say sovereign like we have a monarchy. Just saying.
When they go beyond the rule of law you will know about it.

This just makes it seem like you want the findings hidden.
We already know the report does not exonerate trump of obstruction so I guess you and he just want that info buried.

But if theres something that Judicial Watch thinks is relevant in a Clinton e mail that should be investigated to the hilt and then three times on Sunday.

Wow Silly!

You will never admit that you were wrong for the last two and a half years.

Trump himself has even asked for the full report to be released!

Sounds like a guilty man for sure!

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: dfnj2015

For something that was manufactured there sure have been a lot of indictments:

Any against Trump for rigging the election or colluding with Russia.

Ip so facto.

Your argument is invalid.

Wow, "invalid". What is invalid by the list of indictments and plea deals I posted. LOL! You Trump bozos are bunch of losers.

a reply to: DBCowboy

The report was written by democrats who wanted Hillary to win and Mueller who signed off on Hillary's UraniumOne deal.

Release it all and people will see bias.

shouldn't everyone want it released, it would basically put 2020 in the Bank for Trump if they released it and showed not a single doubt of anything the Left could say was "bad"


I find it amusing how some Patriots don't want it released to "own the libs" while whining about "Government Transparency"

originally posted by: rickymouse
We have spies all over the world and exposing these people could put a target on their head or jeopardize what they are working on. Unlike what WAPO writes, an unnamed source, that report includes names of the sources. So if the left feels we should have to give all sources, then I think all News agencies should be required to give the names of all sources in their articles. That is fair, just change the laws to say this applies to everyone.

That would be possible if the sources actually existed...

a reply to: Sillyolme

So they found evidence of Russian collision but didn't wanna charge a sitting president? Sounds like massive waste of time a money.

They'll release the report and I'm sorry the MSM and the democrats lied to you. I'm sure it won't be the last time