OT: Please someone explain the dichotomy with these comments
- Thread starter Quest4Twelve
- Start date
If you can answer seriously how in the hell Mueller and his “team” can be taken seriously?
Did u watch that pig circus? I actually started to feel sorry for him. What a complete waste of time and money.
Did u watch that pig circus? I actually started to feel sorry for him. What a complete waste of time and money.
1st change of subject...
Mueller's testimony confirmed that Russia committed massive interference in 2016 and they're planning to do it again in 2020. Wikileaks also committed massive interference by publishing thousands of stolen emails. Both Russia and Wikileaks committed these crimes for the purpose of getting Donald Trump elected.
Here's a snippet from today's testimony:
Schiff: During the course of this Russian interference in the election, the Russians made outreach to the Trump campaign, did they not?
Mueller: That occurred. [. . .]
Schiff: The campaign welcomed the Russian help, did they not?
Mueller: We report indications that that occurred, yes. [. . .]
Schiff: The president himself called on the Russians to hack [Hillary Clinton’s] emails?
Mueller: There was a statement by the president on those general lines.
Schiff: Numerous times during the campaign, the president praised the releases of the Russian-hacked emails through WikiLeaks?
Mueller: That did occur. [. . .]
Schiff: Apart from the Russians wanting to help Trump win . . . Donald Trump was trying to make millions from a real estate deal in Moscow?
Mueller: You’re talking about the hotel in Moscow? Yes.
Schiff: When your investigation looked into these matters, numerous Trump associates lied to your team, the grand jury and to Congress?
Mueller: A number of people we interviewed in our investigation, it turns out, did lie. . . .
Schiff: When the president said the Russian interference was a “hoax,” that was false, wasn’t it?
Mueller: True. [. . .]
Schiff: In short, your investigation found evidence that Russia wanted to help Trump win the election, right?
Mueller: I think, generally, that would be accurate. [. . .]
Schiff: Russia committed federal crimes in order to help Donald Trump?
Mueller: You’re talking about the computer crimes charged in our case? Absolutely.
Schiff: Trump campaign officials built their strategy, their messaging strategy, around those stolen documents?
Mueller: Generally, that’s true.
Schiff: And then they lied to cover it up?
Mueller: Generally, that’s true.
Here's a snippet from today's testimony:
Schiff: During the course of this Russian interference in the election, the Russians made outreach to the Trump campaign, did they not?
Mueller: That occurred. [. . .]
Schiff: The campaign welcomed the Russian help, did they not?
Mueller: We report indications that that occurred, yes. [. . .]
Schiff: The president himself called on the Russians to hack [Hillary Clinton’s] emails?
Mueller: There was a statement by the president on those general lines.
Schiff: Numerous times during the campaign, the president praised the releases of the Russian-hacked emails through WikiLeaks?
Mueller: That did occur. [. . .]
Schiff: Apart from the Russians wanting to help Trump win . . . Donald Trump was trying to make millions from a real estate deal in Moscow?
Mueller: You’re talking about the hotel in Moscow? Yes.
Schiff: When your investigation looked into these matters, numerous Trump associates lied to your team, the grand jury and to Congress?
Mueller: A number of people we interviewed in our investigation, it turns out, did lie. . . .
Schiff: When the president said the Russian interference was a “hoax,” that was false, wasn’t it?
Mueller: True. [. . .]
Schiff: In short, your investigation found evidence that Russia wanted to help Trump win the election, right?
Mueller: I think, generally, that would be accurate. [. . .]
Schiff: Russia committed federal crimes in order to help Donald Trump?
Mueller: You’re talking about the computer crimes charged in our case? Absolutely.
Schiff: Trump campaign officials built their strategy, their messaging strategy, around those stolen documents?
Mueller: Generally, that’s true.
Schiff: And then they lied to cover it up?
Mueller: Generally, that’s true.
Trump was re elected today!
Thanks Schiffty, Nadless!
The hearings were priceless!
Thanks Schiffty, Nadless!
The hearings were priceless!
Who knew that Anthony Weiner was a member of our message board. How are the accommodations at the half way house?
Stay off the dating sites.
Dems. Please run on Russia and lax immigration enforcement. Brilliant idea.
Benko the only thing actually involving trump is his joking comment to hack Hillary’s emails. You can’t indict “trump administration” . They use the phrase trump administration to make trump sound bad when in reality stuff you post about was done by people trump didn’t even know in his administration.
I appreciate people like you helping to re elect trump. Thank you benko!
I appreciate people like you helping to re elect trump. Thank you benko!
And Ted Kennedy went to Russia to solicit Russian interference.
Do you really think Russia just started to interfere?
Has the US ever interfered in another nation election.......like isreals for example.
This day blew up in the Democrats face
It is apparently part of Robert Mueller’s contract with the media that he must always be described as “honorable” and a “lifelong Republican.” (After this week, we can add “dazed and confused” to his appellation.)
If it matters that Mueller is a “lifelong Republican,” then I guess it matters that he hired a team of left-wing zealots. Of the 17 lawyers in Mueller’s office, 14 are registered Democrats. Not one is a registered Republican. In total, they have donated more than $60,000 to Democratic candidates.
Congressman Steve Chabot listed the Democratic political activism of nine of Mueller’s staff attorneys at a December 2017 House hearing.
Here are a few from Chabot’s list:
— Kyle Freeny contributed to both Obama campaigns and to Hillary Clinton’s campaign.
— Andrew Goldstein donated $3,300 to both Obama campaigns.
— Elizabeth Prelogar contributed to both the Obama and Clinton campaigns.
— Jeannie Rhee donated $16,000 to Democrats, contributed $5,400 to the Clinton campaign — and represented Hillary Clinton and the Clinton Foundation in several lawsuits.
— Andrew Weissmann contributed $2,000 to the Democratic National Committee, $2,300 to the Obama campaign and $2,300 to the Clinton Campaign.
None had donated to the Trump campaign.
The media brushed off the conspicuous anti-Trump bias in Mueller’s office with platitudes about how prosecutors are, “allowed to have political opinions,” as Jeffrey Toobin said on CNN. Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein assured the public that their “views are not in any way a factor in how they conduct themselves in office.”
Obviously, no one believes this — otherwise “lifelong Republican” wouldn’t be spot-welded to Mueller’s name.
In a fiery rebuke at the hearings this week, Mueller denounced complaints about all the diehard Democrats on his legal team, saying, “I’ve been in this business for almost 25 years, and in those 25 years I have not had occasion once to ask somebody about their political affiliation. It is not done.”
No kidding. He’s been director of the FBI. He’s been acting U.S. deputy attorney general. He’s been a U.S. attorney. He’s never been an independent counsel investigating the president before.
An independent counsel investigation isn’t the kind of job where you want the hungriest prosecutors. You want drug enforcement agents who are hungry to bust up drug rings. You want organized crime prosecutors who are hungry to take down the mob.
But lawyers on a special counsel’s investigation of the president of the United States aren’t supposed to be hungry. They’re supposed to be fair
.
As for Mueller being “honorable,” Steven Hatfill and the late Sen. Ted Stevens
might beg to differ.
After the 2001 anthrax attacks, the FBI, under Director Mueller’s close supervision, spent SEVEN YEARS pursuing Hatfill, a U.S. Army biodefense researcher. Year after year, the real culprit went about his life undisturbed — until he committed suicide when, at last, the FBI zeroed in on him.
Mueller was deeply involved in the anthrax investigation, recruiting the lead investigator on the case and working “in lockstep” with him, according to a book on the case, “The Mirage Man” by David Willman.
During this multi-year investigation of the wrong man, Mueller assured Attorney General John Ashcroft, as well as two U.S. senators that Hatfill was the anthrax mailer. Presciently, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz asked then-Deputy Attorney General James Comey if he was sure Hatfill wasn’t another Richard Jewell, an innocent man who, a few years earlier, had been publicly identified by the FBI as the main Olympic bombing suspect. Comey replied that he was “absolutely certain that it was Hatfill.”
The hounding of Steven Hatfill finally ended in 2008, with the bureau paying the poor man millions of dollars. In open court, a federal judge, Reggie B. Walton, assailed Mueller’s FBI for its handling of the case.
Far from apologizing, the director stoutly defended the bureau’s relentless pursuit of the blameless Hatfill, saying: “I do not apologize for any aspect of this investigation.” He said it would be incorrect “to say there were mistakes.”
Maybe he can use that line to defend the similarly monomaniacal zealots he put on the Russia investigation.
Eight days before the 2008 elections, the government convicted Sen. Stevens of failing to properly report gifts on his Senate financial forms. The longest-serving Republican in Senate history lost his re-election by less than 2 percent of the vote.
Months later — too late for Stevens’ political career — Obama Attorney General Eric Holder moved for a dismissal of all charges against Stevens after discovering that the government had failed to turn over crucial exculpatory evidence. The trial judge not only threw out the charges, but angrily ordered an independent counsel to investigate the investigators.
Unlike the disastrous Hatfill case, the extent of Mueller’s oversight of the Stevens investigation is less clear. Was he aware of the bureau’s malicious pursuit of a sitting U.S. senator on the eve of his re-election? Either he was, which is awful, or he wasn’t — which is worse.
In addition to “honorable,” another way of describing Mueller is: “Too Corrupt for Eric Holder.”
If it matters that Mueller is a “lifelong Republican,” then I guess it matters that he hired a team of left-wing zealots. Of the 17 lawyers in Mueller’s office, 14 are registered Democrats. Not one is a registered Republican. In total, they have donated more than $60,000 to Democratic candidates.
Congressman Steve Chabot listed the Democratic political activism of nine of Mueller’s staff attorneys at a December 2017 House hearing.
Here are a few from Chabot’s list:
— Kyle Freeny contributed to both Obama campaigns and to Hillary Clinton’s campaign.
— Andrew Goldstein donated $3,300 to both Obama campaigns.
— Elizabeth Prelogar contributed to both the Obama and Clinton campaigns.
— Jeannie Rhee donated $16,000 to Democrats, contributed $5,400 to the Clinton campaign — and represented Hillary Clinton and the Clinton Foundation in several lawsuits.
— Andrew Weissmann contributed $2,000 to the Democratic National Committee, $2,300 to the Obama campaign and $2,300 to the Clinton Campaign.
None had donated to the Trump campaign.
The media brushed off the conspicuous anti-Trump bias in Mueller’s office with platitudes about how prosecutors are, “allowed to have political opinions,” as Jeffrey Toobin said on CNN. Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein assured the public that their “views are not in any way a factor in how they conduct themselves in office.”
Obviously, no one believes this — otherwise “lifelong Republican” wouldn’t be spot-welded to Mueller’s name.
In a fiery rebuke at the hearings this week, Mueller denounced complaints about all the diehard Democrats on his legal team, saying, “I’ve been in this business for almost 25 years, and in those 25 years I have not had occasion once to ask somebody about their political affiliation. It is not done.”
No kidding. He’s been director of the FBI. He’s been acting U.S. deputy attorney general. He’s been a U.S. attorney. He’s never been an independent counsel investigating the president before.
An independent counsel investigation isn’t the kind of job where you want the hungriest prosecutors. You want drug enforcement agents who are hungry to bust up drug rings. You want organized crime prosecutors who are hungry to take down the mob.
But lawyers on a special counsel’s investigation of the president of the United States aren’t supposed to be hungry. They’re supposed to be fair
As for Mueller being “honorable,” Steven Hatfill and the late Sen. Ted Stevens
After the 2001 anthrax attacks, the FBI, under Director Mueller’s close supervision, spent SEVEN YEARS pursuing Hatfill, a U.S. Army biodefense researcher. Year after year, the real culprit went about his life undisturbed — until he committed suicide when, at last, the FBI zeroed in on him.
Mueller was deeply involved in the anthrax investigation, recruiting the lead investigator on the case and working “in lockstep” with him, according to a book on the case, “The Mirage Man” by David Willman.
During this multi-year investigation of the wrong man, Mueller assured Attorney General John Ashcroft, as well as two U.S. senators that Hatfill was the anthrax mailer. Presciently, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz asked then-Deputy Attorney General James Comey if he was sure Hatfill wasn’t another Richard Jewell, an innocent man who, a few years earlier, had been publicly identified by the FBI as the main Olympic bombing suspect. Comey replied that he was “absolutely certain that it was Hatfill.”
The hounding of Steven Hatfill finally ended in 2008, with the bureau paying the poor man millions of dollars. In open court, a federal judge, Reggie B. Walton, assailed Mueller’s FBI for its handling of the case.
Far from apologizing, the director stoutly defended the bureau’s relentless pursuit of the blameless Hatfill, saying: “I do not apologize for any aspect of this investigation.” He said it would be incorrect “to say there were mistakes.”
Maybe he can use that line to defend the similarly monomaniacal zealots he put on the Russia investigation.
Eight days before the 2008 elections, the government convicted Sen. Stevens of failing to properly report gifts on his Senate financial forms. The longest-serving Republican in Senate history lost his re-election by less than 2 percent of the vote.
Months later — too late for Stevens’ political career — Obama Attorney General Eric Holder moved for a dismissal of all charges against Stevens after discovering that the government had failed to turn over crucial exculpatory evidence. The trial judge not only threw out the charges, but angrily ordered an independent counsel to investigate the investigators.
Unlike the disastrous Hatfill case, the extent of Mueller’s oversight of the Stevens investigation is less clear. Was he aware of the bureau’s malicious pursuit of a sitting U.S. senator on the eve of his re-election? Either he was, which is awful, or he wasn’t — which is worse.
In addition to “honorable,” another way of describing Mueller is: “Too Corrupt for Eric Holder.”
Even the Staunchest Dem backers said today was not a good look and impeachment is completely off the shelf now. Laurence Tribe. Al Green.
Funny....I think, but trying and understand why Anthony Weiner is on your mind. #random
Mueller -- And The DOJ -- Dies On The Hill
Ouch.
As has been pointed out multiple times there is a presumption of innocence for all criminal investigations.
The prosecutor must find evidence of guilt sufficient to sustain a prosecution. This is wellbeyond probable cause; that just gets you a search warrant. To actually sustain a prosecution you actually need something beyond a preponderance of evidence -- but exactly how far you must get beyond that point is a prosecutorial decision, mostly grounded in how much risk the department is willing to take of losing at trial.
Then the jury (or judge, if the accused so chooses) must find sufficient evidence to convict beyond a reasonable doubt.
There's a reason that if you get charged on a federal crime 99% of the time you're screwed; the prosecutors know these are the rules and they require well beyond "a preponderance of the evidence" before bringing a charge in the first place -- in no small part because the prestige and authority of their office rests primarily on only charging that which they are quite sure they can win convictions on.
There is not only no authority to "imply" guilt there is no authority to write a report implying same.
It's illegal to do so under the presumption that all persons have of innocence which, if rebutted by evidence, leads to a criminal charge.
You either charge a crime or you don't.
That's the beginning and end of the debate.
Mueller walked up this hill and literally died on it. He was forced to admit he could not cite a single regulation, law or practice within the DOJ for what he wrote in the second part of the report.
That's because legally what he did was void.
Worse, as an official act of the DOJ, undertaken under great scrutiny and with the full authority of same, such an action has permanently destroyed any claim to legitimacy the DOJ ever had. It is a void entity. No person in this nation has any obligation to give it any credibility of any kind ever again until and unless Mueller and everyone involved in his activity goes to prison.
Ouch.
As has been pointed out multiple times there is a presumption of innocence for all criminal investigations.
The prosecutor must find evidence of guilt sufficient to sustain a prosecution. This is wellbeyond probable cause; that just gets you a search warrant. To actually sustain a prosecution you actually need something beyond a preponderance of evidence -- but exactly how far you must get beyond that point is a prosecutorial decision, mostly grounded in how much risk the department is willing to take of losing at trial.
Then the jury (or judge, if the accused so chooses) must find sufficient evidence to convict beyond a reasonable doubt.
There's a reason that if you get charged on a federal crime 99% of the time you're screwed; the prosecutors know these are the rules and they require well beyond "a preponderance of the evidence" before bringing a charge in the first place -- in no small part because the prestige and authority of their office rests primarily on only charging that which they are quite sure they can win convictions on.
There is not only no authority to "imply" guilt there is no authority to write a report implying same.
It's illegal to do so under the presumption that all persons have of innocence which, if rebutted by evidence, leads to a criminal charge.
You either charge a crime or you don't.
That's the beginning and end of the debate.
Mueller walked up this hill and literally died on it. He was forced to admit he could not cite a single regulation, law or practice within the DOJ for what he wrote in the second part of the report.
That's because legally what he did was void.
Worse, as an official act of the DOJ, undertaken under great scrutiny and with the full authority of same, such an action has permanently destroyed any claim to legitimacy the DOJ ever had. It is a void entity. No person in this nation has any obligation to give it any credibility of any kind ever again until and unless Mueller and everyone involved in his activity goes to prison.
Don't you think Orange looks pretty ridiculous calling Wikileaks a hoax now? You guys and dis Mueller and his aloofness today, but admit Trump did ZERO to refute how much of a shady mofo he is.
What part of the report findings were refuted today?
Hoping your computer has no camera! Did your ex or Hillary ever invite you to their bedroom?
Russia’s interference was far from “massive” unless you call spending
$ 50,000 on Facebook massive.
For all of their efforts, do you know anyone who changed their vote from Hillary to Trump due to Russia’s interference?
I think Comey’s pre-election announcement was far more influential than anything the Russians did.
Remind us again, who was the President of the U.S. when Russia and others were trying to interfere in the 2016 election ?
Let’s look at it another way.
Do you prefer for the truth to be revealed or do you feel that emails, servers and hard drives should be destroyed.
Didn’t Obama interfere in the Israeli elections trying to get his candidate elected and Netanyahu defeated.
And what about the FBI creating a false narrative in order to spy on Trump and the Trump Campaign.
You can’t have it both ways !
You come off corny and try to hard. In other news any comment on the Wikileaks comments by Trumpster?
It is MIND BOGGLING not just how Trump got you guys to vote for him, but how you now argue and deflect just like him. I bet you have no collusion, no obstruction tatted on the small of your back?
I've been saying for months this was the Weissman report
Mueller came out looking clueless
Time to put Weissmann on the stand
The witch hunt is over! The real Russian collusion investigation of Democrats about to begin!
Actually, it was Mueller who set those words in stone.
Mueller’s extensive report stated that no American was involved in any conspiracy with the Russians.
Mueller’s extensive report stated that no American co-ordinated with the Russians.
The entire “Russian collusion” narrative was a false narrative created by Hillary and the Democrats.
It will be interesting to see what the Inspector General’s report reveals.
I find it interesting that your not disturbed by the FBI agents erasing their anti-Trump texts. Hopefully, the person or persons who erased them will be called to testify !
That it was wrote by mueller. That it wasn’t biased or rigged.
From watching today’s proceedings, to me, it seemed like Mueller was passively involved in the investigation, leaving 14 or so anti-Trump attorney’s to run the investigation and write the report.
I’ve never seen a case where a prosecuting attorney makes a declaration that their findings don’t exonerate the target of their prosecution.
It’s not the job of any prosecuting attorney to exonerate the individual that’s under investigation or being prosecuted.
Libtards crying everywhere tonight! Another Trump clown stomping of the Fake Mueller report!
Really?
The lead on the investigation didn't read the report written by democratic partisans to make sure not to look foolish if brought in front of Congress.
He had no idea who Fusion GPS was ....how is that even possible?
Did you not watch any of today’s proceedings? Honestly. You have a lot of very staunch Democrats saying today was the end of the impeachment talk. It was that bad.
16 people worked for Mueller. 16 Democrats who all contributed to the Clintons in some capacity.
So....based on that reply your bar is set pretty low then? Here is the long and short. Trump and his cohorts knew they were doing stuff they shouldn't have been doing. If it wasn't the case they would've said investigate until your blue in the face I have ZERO to hide. However that is not the case. It was laid out today the people affiliated or part of Trump campaign straight lied to investigators. True or false?
Regarding your deleting of text messages by FBI agents, where did you hear that one? Can you provide a link?
Mueller was the lead counsel. However regarding the contents of the report what was refuted?
HC I assume stands for Hillary Clinton? Remind me again is she president? #deflect
