The Mueller report for all of us to see

a reply to: Cassi3l

Funny you mention Mueller's finding......

Here's another one for you to grasp at:

"No conspiracy charges" (AKA what you all wrongly called "collusion")
"No obstruction charges"

That is the result of the investigation. Whether you personally accept it or not is immaterial, it is reality. It is now established fact.

You lost the narrative. Your precious investigation is dead. No charges came of it. No charges are pending. Trump, Trump Jr. and so on were never "frog marched in handcuffs" nor are there any "booking photos" to ogle.

This was a bust. And an unmitigated failure of the Dems, and we will make sure every voter knows it for 2020. Voters are going to punish your party *almost* as bad as we're going to punish the treasonous conspirators behind this plot.

The. Treason. Trials.

a reply to: JBurns

I am unsure of the source since I got it from my son . He says Assange showed proof the the DNC hack was a download . That is all I know but have read information before about the download speeds . I have no faith in crowdstrike and it was covered in Bongino's book Spygate .

Lock them up.

This was a conspiracy against the President and equally important a conspiracy against the Citizens of the United States

originally posted by: 10uoutlaw
a reply to: JBurns

I am unsure of the source since I got it from my son . He says Assange showed proof the the DNC hack was a download . That is all I know but have read information before about the download speeds . I have no faith in crowdstrike and it was covered in Bongino's book Spygate .

Excellent post

His source is "Bill Binney" an NSA whistleblower who examined the transfer speeds. Given the size of the data, it *had* to be done locally to a USB or hard drive. No serious intelligence operator would attempt such a large transfer especially that quick over a network, it would be detected immediately and compromise the hard-fought "foot hold" they gained

He's spot on

Mueller never examined the DNC server. FBI never examined the DNC server. NSA/DISA never examined the DNC server. Only DNC-paid contractor "CrowdStrike" looked at it, despite FBI and others offering to investigate the matter

There is no evidence other than CrowdStrike's "good word" to go on. And anyone (including the Feds) claiming to have seen hard evidence is lying. Hint: No one will claim they saw hard evidence because it is a well documented fact they never did.

a reply to: JBurns

This is why there are no obstruction "charges" from Mueller's office:

First, a traditional prosecution or declination decision entails a binary determination to initiate or decline a prosecution, but we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment. The Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) has issued an opinion finding that "t he indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would impermissibly undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions" in violation of "the constitutional separation of powers." 1 Given the role of the Special Counsel as an attorney in the Department of Justice and the framework of the Special Counsel regulations , see 28 U.S.C. § 515;28 C.F.R. § 600.7(a), this Office accepted OLC's legal conclusion for the purpose of exercising prosecutorial jurisdiction. And apart from OLC's constitutional view, we recognized that a federal criminal accusation against a sitting President would place burdens on the President's capacity to govern and potentially preempt constitutional processes for addressing presidential misconduct.

cdn.cnn.com...

a reply to: Sookiechacha

That is a great theory, but they actually addressed it..... several times in fact.

The decision not to prosecute was *not* based on concerns of infringing on the Constitutional duties of a sitting President.

Sorry, next straw please.


edit: Regardless, the decision was "No charges"

This means he is *not* accused of Obstruction (or conspiracy). It is factually incorrect for you to say he is 1) accused of obstruction/conspiracy and especially 2) actually guilty of obstruction/conspiracy. Neither of those are true.

You know that is how due process works, come on you are smarter than this and I know it.[

a reply to: JBurns

That's exactly what they're saying. Mueller didn't have permission to indict a sitting president.

The Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) has issued an opinion finding that "the indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would impermissibly undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions"

Which is why Mueller kicked it to Congress, after being unable to clear Trump of obstruction charges.

a reply to: Cassi3l

Your really up a creek without a paddle.

Steney Hoyer - Democrat House Leader said
today that there is nothing in Robert Mueller's
report that would make seeking impeachment
"worthwhile" at this point.

Sorry impeachment is NOT going to happen.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

They are alive and well.

Anyone who is still swallowing ANY of this mueller time bull# isn't watching their diet very closely, IMO. We're on our own now. No "justice" department. No balance of powers. No Constitution.

Stop chewing and spit it out. We have to make our leaders do what we elected them to do - not allow another repubican criminal (recent example; george w bush) to just get away with anything and everything as they forever alter the "precedents" we all used to consider laws.

www.democraticunderground.com...

From your own party. Take their cue, huh?

If you think you can impeach/convict, go for it. That is your only option (a very, very long shot) short of winning in 2020 (another long shot). Most likely, this investigation and the doubling down BS has handed us 2020 as well as RBG's SCOTUS seat. Keep it up though, give us 2024 too.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

No, that is a lie.

They specifically said the decision NOT to prosecute was NOT based on the DOJ's *opinion* that a sitting President can't be indicted. Mueller agrees with this position, however... this wasn't the reason, and it is specifically spelled out.

a reply to: JBurns

They specifically said the decision NOT to prosecute was NOT based on the DOJ's *opinion* that a sitting President can't be indicted.

Citation please.

a reply to: JBurns

Are you suggesting that I posted that random post from a random web site?

originally posted by: JBurns
Wow, folks Obama *really* dropped the ball on this one didn't he?

Why did he think a "stern talking to" and a warning to "knock it off" was an appropriate response?

What a castrado, low-IQ fool that Soetoro (err, Obama)

LOL don't make me laugh because it hurts. I'm recovering (i hope) from pneumonia. And I believe I had a setback today because my retarded ex who suffers from TDS called me and started giving my crap about Trump and how the Mueller report lays a RICO case for him. LOL

I told him that his lawyer Rudy Guliani practically wrote the RICO statutes so good luck with that.

a reply to: xuenchen
Bravo !
Bellisimmmoooh!!

Each time I log in,
I will now star your post to death
whaaaaaa hilllry

But that's not the point, no siree


A few nights ago, someone on ATS... shhh
had four hunnred 'an fifty stars !

no waaaay
yup !


That must've bruised a few tender egos around here

So i'll be starring you babyshades
smoke and smoking chickies 'n' all


Back on topic...

Did you know ?
in news outside of Trumplandia

The Mueller conclusion concluded that
Trump abused(es) his presidential powers

Noooo !
yup

Oops i just gave ya another starrrr
did you go all funny

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: JBurns

They specifically said the decision NOT to prosecute was NOT based on the DOJ's *opinion* that a sitting President can't be indicted.

Citation please.

For craps sake didn't you watch the press conference? He most assuredly stated this today, as well as previously in his summary that was released weeks ago. Geeesh.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

He lied under oath ( perjury) The blue dress did him in . Now if you want to discuss what kind of person saves a stained dress or that Bill was set up that is a great conversation .

ATTENTION PLEASE

You are not in the Mud Pit, so any political trolling, personal insults or tit for tat can and will lead to a Posting Ban. Be warned.

Do not reply to this post.

So uh .......Mueller is done and Donald J Trump will lay his head on a pillow in a bedroom in THE WHITE HOUSE tonight?

I was told here by many that Mueller would give the bad orange man the bums rush?

Were you all wrong?

a reply to: toolgal462

Mueller said something else in his report, something about it being "impermissible" for him to have done so. I quoted it for you, twice.

Can you cite from the Mueller report where he said something different?

More than half of report redacted? Out of 700 pages 400 pages were redacted? Is that correct?