Mueller to publicly testify before House committees after being subpoenaed

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: chr0naut
He frequently attended the annual, Kremlin sponsored, 'Valdai Discussion Club' in Moscow (which links him directly to Putin, who also attended). Mifsud also maintained contacts with suspected Russian intelligence operatives while living in London.

I know, that is why he was an asset.

If he was 'spying on Russia', as a US asset, he was doing it long distance.

What a silly statement. It is 2019 after all.

Mifsud is currently missing, believed to be living under a new identity (something spies have prepared as a contingency) and, as far as we know, has made no attempt to clear himself of the charges, which he could do anonymously via the press.

Or he is dead...

They confessed

Yes... because they were bankrupted and threatened - and again in the case of Flynn, they threatened to drag his son through the mud too.

and the details of the evidence that was laid out in the Mueller report

Evidence in the Mueller Report? The report that said there was no collusion?

No, the Mueller report said no such thing.

Trump said that.

The Mueller report actually said that there was insufficient evidence to make a case. This does not mean that there was no evidence. This does not mean that anyone has been explicitly cleared for ever and for all time. This does not mean 'not guilty'.

No charges were brought. Insufficient evidence. Simple & clear.

and the guilty pleas were ratified by judicial examination in open court.

Ratified? You mean the court accepted their please? That is how it works.

"You haven't been 'found guilty', as in, guilty by a jury of your peers, if you plead."

True, but that is because you are found guilty by your own admission, the jury doesn't have to deliberate. There is still an actual court case, and a judicial questioning, and judicial review. Believe it or not, but the judicial system is trying to determine the truth of the matters before it.

sometimes, maybe, but not when the ones pleading are being railroaded and everyone knows and wants it.

Judges are highly legally trained and legally experienced. I'm sure they'd resent the inference of being a 'rubber stamp mechanism'.

Many judges are willing participants in protecting their biases and 'the system'.

"Papadopolous got a whopping 14 days, and it looks like that will all be overturned soon, and he is going to have one mother of a massive lawsuit against the Feds for withholding exculpatory evidence, malicious prosecution and other niceties.

And Flynn has fired his legal team and hired a new one and looks like will be withdrawing his guilty plea soon too."

That is not really the way the law works. One can appeal a conviction, but one has to have strong grounds to say they were coerced into a guilty plea.

Flynn hasn't been senteced yet, he can withdraw his plea anytime before his sentencing.

Papa will have to sue, but only time will tell if he will get his 'conviction' vacated.

Especially as the court case that convicts them explains that they are waiving their rights and that they are knowingly and intelligently waiving those rights.

Yes, I know, in cases like this, they do everything in their power to make it appear all nice and neat - but appearances is all that matters to these criminals.

Honestly, you are assuming a very large scale criminal conspiracy that would be almost impossible to create, sustain and keep secret. It involves nearly the whole FBI, Homeland Security, the DOJ, the Democratic party, the Obama staff, the ODI, and a stack of people from foreign intelligence agencies, governments, news outlets and private businesses.

At some point you have to ask yourself how absolutely unlikely that there is such a large and unwieldy conspiracy and see that anyone who blames absolutely everyone else in the world who opposes them, has a persecution complex and a screw loose.

a reply to: chr0naut

No he is not but if you repeat a lie enough simpletons will believe it!
law.stackexchange.com...

www.metro.us...

Try again

originally posted by: chr0naut
No, the Mueller report said no such thing.

Trump said that.

The Mueller report actually said that there was insufficient evidence to make a case. This does not mean that there was no evidence. This does not mean that anyone has been explicitly cleared for ever and for all time. This does not mean 'not guilty'.

Ignorance of the law, eh?

This was an investigation, not a trial. This is how the law works.

If there is insufficient evidence, there is no prosecution. Period.

No charges were brought. Insufficient evidence. Simple & clear.

Bingo. Maybe you do understand, you just refuse to acknowledge the truth.

Honestly, you are assuming a very large scale criminal conspiracy that would be almost impossible to create, sustain and keep secret. It involves nearly the whole FBI, Homeland Security, the DOJ, the Democratic party, the Obama staff, the ODI, and a stack of people from foreign intelligence agencies, governments, news outlets and private businesses.

Ummm... no, all it would take is Mueller and hos goon squad of 19 extremely biased TDS sufferers.

But you are correct that this conspiracy won't survive - the truth is coming out.

Tick-tock...

originally posted by: CrazyFox


a reply to: chr0naut

No he is not but if you repeat a lie enough simpletons will believe it!
law.stackexchange.com...

www.metro.us...

Try again

The Mueller report page 1 paragraph 4 related to the Office of Legal Counsel ruling on the indictability of a sitting Presidemnt. Despite other legal opinion, this was what was actually applied.

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: chr0naut
No, the Mueller report said no such thing.

Trump said that.

The Mueller report actually said that there was insufficient evidence to make a case. This does not mean that there was no evidence. This does not mean that anyone has been explicitly cleared for ever and for all time. This does not mean 'not guilty'.

Ignorance of the law, eh?

This was an investigation, not a trial. This is how the law works.

If there is insufficient evidence, there is no prosecution. Period.

But that does not mean not guilty. The Mueller report was specific about 'non-exoneration'.

No charges were brought. Insufficient evidence. Simple & clear.

Bingo. Maybe you do understand, you just refuse to acknowledge the truth.

'No charge' does not mean exonerated. It is specifically stated in the report for clarity sake.

Honestly, you are assuming a very large scale criminal conspiracy that would be almost impossible to create, sustain and keep secret. It involves nearly the whole FBI, Homeland Security, the DOJ, the Democratic party, the Obama staff, the ODI, and a stack of people from foreign intelligence agencies, governments, news outlets and private businesses.

Ummm... no, all it would take is Mueller and hos goon squad of 19 extremely biased TDS sufferers.

Mueller is a Republican and has shown no sign of partisanship in the production of the report. He could have made a ruling on obstruction and refrained from doing so.

To accuse Mueller of TDS, in light of the report and all his dealings with the press to date, is a totally unsupported and rather paranoid opinion.

But you are correct that this conspiracy won't survive - the truth is coming out.

Tick-tock...

What truth? Other than unsupported allegations, what has actually been found to indicate that there is a conspiracy?

The tone of the Mueller report was conservative and seems to have been well researched and well evidenced.

Half of the allegations seem to assume that people cannot do more than one thing in their lives. Like as if being an asset to US intelligence means that they cannot possibly have been a spy for the Soviets.

It is this level of either/or rationalization that are used to supposedly cast doubt on the findings of the report. It is poor reasoning and invalid argument.

a reply to: chr0naut

Actually it does.

If you go to court and accuse someone of crime
then provide no evidence because '' I couldn't find evidence ''

what do you think the court will do?

I apologise for how Frank this is, but people are acting like pathetic brats if you still harp on that Mueller infact didnt find Trump innocent.

no matter how loud you scream or how long you cry, Mueller came up with 0 and thats why Trumps still President, meeting world leaders.

Move on.... for your own mental well being

originally posted by: Agit8dChop
a reply to: chr0naut

Actually it does.

If you go to court and accuse someone of crime
then provide no evidence because '' I couldn't find evidence ''

what do you think the court will do?

I apologise for how Frank this is, but people are acting like pathetic brats if you still harp on that Mueller infact didnt find Trump innocent.

no matter how loud you scream or how long you cry, Mueller came up with 0 and thats why Trumps still President, meeting world leaders.

Move on.... for your own mental well being

Then why did Mueller include that section in the report about non-exoneration?

It's there in black and white, for all of history, now. It's meaning and intent were clear.

a reply to: chr0naut

Then why did Mueller include that section in the report about non-exoneration?

Because it has been a political hit job since day 1.

It's there in black and white, for all of history, now. It's meaning and intent were clear.

I was going to agree, but say that we must differ on how we are interpreting its meaning and intent, but then that means it wasn't clear, was it?

This has been a political hit job since hillary hired steele to dig up dirt on trump. The dirt they got was russian disinformation, most likely. Meant to sow chaos and uncertainty. It succeeded, not because it was plausible or well crafted, but because partisans can't seem to overcome their partisanship and trump hatred long enough to acknowledge how ridiculous the whole premise of this "investigation" and "dossier" were.

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: chr0naut

Then why did Mueller include that section in the report about non-exoneration?

Because it has been a political hit job since day 1.

That is what Trump said.

But the actual fallout of the Mueller report sort of argues against that, doesn't it?

It's there in black and white, for all of history, now. It's meaning and intent were clear.

I was going to agree, but say that we must differ on how we are interpreting its meaning and intent, but then that means it wasn't clear, was it?

No, the meaning was quite clear. To suggest alternate interpretations would require that you ignore sections of the report entirely. There is no 'wiggle room' in the interpretation. You cannot make reference to other parts of the report as if they applied to the sections you don't like, they stand on their own.

Just because you do not want it to say what it does, does not change its meaning.

This has been a political hit job since hillary hired steele to dig up dirt on trump. The dirt they got was russian disinformation, most likely. Meant to sow chaos and uncertainty. It succeeded, not because it was plausible or well crafted, but because partisans can't seem to overcome their partisanship and trump hatred long enough to acknowledge how ridiculous the whole premise of this "investigation" and "dossier" were.

Trump–Russia dossier, Veracity From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

a reply to: chr0naut

But the actual fallout of the Mueller report sort of argues against that, doesn't it?

Not at all. It actually proves quite well that it's a political hit job. Mueller investigated russian interference right? So how come he didn't look at the steele dossier? Why didn't he investigate this mifsud character that he claimed had russian government ties (who has basically zero russian ties at all). At the end of the day mueller confidently said, there was no collusion between the trump campaign and russia. So what he set out to prove, he disproved.

He then moves on to obstruction (of a crime which mueller says was not committed). He says he cannot exonerate trump on obstruction, so that falls to the people he gave the report to, barr and rosenstein. Barr and rosenstein say no obstruction.

So that's the bottom line. No collusion. No obstruction.

Now, what's left is a report with a bunch of innuendo, but no crimes. So why is there a report with a bunch of innuendo? Because it was a political hit job.

No, the meaning was quite clear. To suggest alternate interpretations would require that you ignore sections of the report entirely. There is no 'wiggle room' in the interpretation.

So you agree with barr/rosenstein then. As there can only be one interpretation and the man in charge of making that interpretation is barr, right? Barr pressed mueller and made sure he wasn't not presenting a conclusion because he was not allowed to indict a president. Mueller told him that had nothing to do with it. So what purpose does mueller's "cannot exonerate" statement serve? Why that of a political hit job.

Trump–Russia dossier, Veracity From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Oh good, you found a wikipedia page to tell you what you want to hear. The truth is, the trump/russia dossier is trash. If you believe that garbage, you need to re-examine your life choices. Even the author of it said he was unable to verify the vast majority of the information in it. The FBI also couldn't verify it, as steele refused to give them his sources.

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: chr0naut

But the actual fallout of the Mueller report sort of argues against that, doesn't it?

Not at all. It actually proves quite well that it's a political hit job. Mueller investigated russian interference right? So how come he didn't look at the steele dossier? Why didn't he investigate this mifsud character that he claimed had russian government ties (who has basically zero russian ties at all). At the end of the day mueller confidently said, there was no collusion between the trump campaign and russia.

Mueller never wrote that in the report, nor did he subsequently say that.

From the Mueller report, Page 1, last paragraph, "The investigation also identified numerous links between the Russian government and the Trump Campaign".

So what he set out to prove, he disproved.

So, it wasn't a "witch hunt", it was actually an investigation to determine the truth.

He then moves on to obstruction (of a crime which mueller says was not committed).

Where does Mueller say that?

Mueller report, Volume 2 Page 2, 4th paragraph, "if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, however, we are unable to reach that judgment. The evidence we obtained about the President's actions and intent presents difficult issues that prevent us from conclusively determining that no criminal conduct occurred. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him".

He says he cannot exonerate trump on obstruction, so that falls to the people he gave the report to, barr and rosenstein. Barr and rosenstein say no obstruction.

You seem to be forgetting Congress. Mueller, Barr and Rosenstein are all DOJ and cannot indict a sitting President. Congress can, through impeachment.

So that's the bottom line. No collusion. No obstruction.

That is Trump's mantra.

Now, what's left is a report with a bunch of innuendo, but no crimes. So why is there a report with a bunch of innuendo? Because it was a political hit job.

Muellers investigation led to multiple indictments and convictions. Some of those were within the inner circle of the Trump campaign.

No, the meaning was quite clear. To suggest alternate interpretations would require that you ignore sections of the report entirely. There is no 'wiggle room' in the interpretation.

So you agree with barr/rosenstein then. As there can only be one interpretation and the man in charge of making that interpretation is barr, right?

Incorrect. The Mueller report stands on its own merit and is quite clear on its limitations and caveats.

It wasn't Barr's job to try and reinterpret the Special Counsel's report. Nor is it Barr's job to indict the President.

Barr pressed mueller and made sure he wasn't not presenting a conclusion because he was not allowed to indict a president. Mueller told him that had nothing to do with it. So what purpose does mueller's "cannot exonerate" statement serve? Why that of a political hit job.

That is not what happened.

Mueller in his letter to Barr dated March 27, 2019, expressed his disagreement with Barr's summary to Congress and the public.

Trump–Russia dossier, Veracity From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Oh good, you found a wikipedia page to tell you what you want to hear. The truth is, the trump/russia dossier is trash. If you believe that garbage, you need to re-examine your life choices. Even the author of it said he was unable to verify the vast majority of the information in it.

Steele said he believes the dossier is 70-90% true.

The FBI also couldn't verify it, as steele refused to give them his sources.

The FBI have verified many of the Steele dossier allegations.

Nunes is not part of the FBI but works for the GOP.

The FBI, Homeland and the ODI all contributed to the Carter Page FISA request and although details in the dossier were referenced, there were also other details such as the testimony of two captured Russian spies, several news reports, testimony from Page himself and other redacted sources of evidence.

If the FISA courts were to reconsider the Carter Page warrant, without the dossier and without what we know today, there would still be a strong case to grant the warrant. The case becomes stronger if we add what we know today.

a reply to: chr0naut

Mueller never wrote that in the report, nor did he subsequently say that.

Sure, he didn't use those words. But that's exactly what this means:

While the investigation identified numerous links between individuals with ties to the Russian government and individuals associated with the Trump Campaign, the evidence was not sufficient to support criminal charges. Among other things, the evidence was not sufficient to charge any Campaign official as an unregistered agent of the Russian government or other Russian principal. And our evidence about the June 9, 2016 meeting and Wikileaks releases of hacked materials was not sufficient to charge a criminal campaign-finance violation. Further, the evidence was not sufficient to charge that any member of the Trump Campaign conspired with representatives of the Russian government to interfere in the 2016 election.

It wasn't Barr's job to try and reinterpret the Special Counsel's report. Nor is it Barr's job to indict the President.

While it was not necessarily his job, it was mueller's and mueller failed to complete his job (and provide a prosecution decision on obstruction).

See here, mueller did not comply with what was required, barr picked up the slack:
28 CFR § 600.8 (c)

At the conclusion of the Special Counsel's work, he or she shall provide the Attorney General with a confidential report explaining the prosecution or declination decisions reached by the Special Counsel.

If mueller wanted to recommend prosecution he could have so done.

That is not what happened. Mueller in his letter to Barr dated March 27, 2019, expressed his disagreement with Barr's summary to Congress and the public.

Yes, lets go ahead and read that:

As we stated in our meeting of March 5 and reiterated to the Department early in the afternoon of March 24, the introductions and executive summaries of our two-volume report accurately summarize this Office's work and conclusions. The summary letter the Department sent to Congress and released to the public late in the afternoon of March 24 did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance of this Office's work and conclusions.

They were upset they didn't get to set the narrative by having the entire executive summary released. They make no contention that barr has lied or misled. It's quite obvious. If you have doubts about that, here's what barr said on collusion:

The Special Counsel's investigation did not find that the Trump campaign or anyone associated with it conspired or coordinated with Russia in its efforts to influence the 2016 U.S. presidential election.

This is almost word for word out of the report. It's not a lie, it's not misleading, it is the finding of the report.

Then on obstruction, mueller punted to barr. Here's what barr said:

The Special Counsel states that “while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.”

Funny how you guys are acting like that was a new contention brought up by the full release of the mueller report, but it was right in barr's summary of findings. It was not hidden. However, it's not what mueller was supposed to do. So barr continued on:

The Special Counsel's decision to describe the facts of his obstruction investigation without reaching any legal conclusions leaves it to the Attorney General to determine whether the conduct described in the report constitutes a crime. Over the course of the investigation, the Special Counsel's office engaged in discussions with certain Department officials regarding many of the legal and factual matters at issue in the Special Counsel's obstruction investigation. After reviewing the Special Counsel's final report on these issues; consulting with Department officials, including the Office of Legal Counsel; and applying the principles of federal prosecution that guide our charging decisions, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and I have concluded that the evidence developed during the Special Counsel's investigation is not sufficient to establish that the President committed an obstruction-of-justice offense. Our determination was made without regard to, and is not based on, the constitutional considerations that surround the indictment and criminal prosecution of a sitting president.

This makes it painfully obvious that mueller and co were simply mad that the spin machine wasn't able to get a head start? Why would mueller be upset that barr had reported the findings without the innuendo, and made his own determination on obstruction where mueller had failed to do so, as required by regulations?

Steele said he believes the dossier is 70-90% true.

He said that back in 2017. He has since backtracked quite a bit, but it really doesn't mean much if steele expressed confidence in his own work. It stands on its own, unverified and absurd. Clapper/brennan/comey have all denied it had anything to do with anything. Why? I mean, if it's so rock solid, why are they running away from it as fast as they can?

The FBI have verified many of the Steele dossier allegations.

And yet they're running away from it? Weird. Could you point me to these "verified" claims? The only "verified" claims are ones that could have been verified easily by anyone with google before writing it. In other words, he took publicly available information and added it into his report to give it some semblance of credibility. It's absurd.

If the FISA courts were to reconsider the Carter Page warrant, without the dossier and without what we know today, there would still be a strong case to grant the warrant. The case becomes stronger if we add what we know today.

Lol, are you reading from talking points memo? This is just sad. It completely lacks any substance, denies the reality of what we know today and will be summarily destroyed when the IG report comes out publicly in the next month or two.