Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Freebird Lives

Mueller to make a statement today at 11 am

Recommended Posts

It probably has to do with the rumor going around that Mueller had written a 3 count indictment against Trump for Obstruction of Justice, but Barr forced him to trash it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sure JB has some hand lotion and napkins at the ready, just incase Mueller charges Trump with obstruction.

  • LMAO 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, DD: OG said:

I'm sure JB has some hand lotion and napkins at the ready, just incase Mueller charges Trump with obstruction.

I wonder if that happens if JB would suddenly believe in Mueller again?

Because Lord knows he hasn't mentioned his name in months.

  • Yep 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I took it as a middle finger to Trump as Mueller walked out the door, I'm surprised Barr ok'd it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, DD: OG said:

I took it as a middle finger to Trump as Mueller walked out the door, I'm surprised Barr ok'd it. 

Whole thing was just a punt to Toad Nadler and impeachment.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the topic of obstruction of justice, Mueller stated that it would be unconstitutional to charge a sitting president with a crime, and he would not accuse someone of a crime without them being able to defend themselves in a court proceeding. At the same time, he said he was unable to exonerate the president either. This has added fuel to Democrats' desire to impeach Trump.

 

So in other words, nothing is still nothing, no matter how the words are framed.

  • Yep 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, SaintRay said:

On the topic of obstruction of justice, Mueller stated that it would be unconstitutional to charge a sitting president with a crime, and he would not accuse someone of a crime without them being able to defend themselves in a court proceeding. At the same time, he said he was unable to exonerate the president either. This has added fuel to Democrats' desire to impeach Trump.

 

So in other words, nothing is still nothing, no matter how the words are framed.

 

He said nothing that was not in the report .  So he did not exonerate Trump, but If he had actually found crimes , he could and would have said have said so .

The whole crux of the Dems obstruction case is that he supposedly told staffers in a fit of pique that Mueller should be fired. That is a pretty weak obstruction case IMO . 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Freebird Lives said:

 

He said nothing that was not in the report .  So he did not exonerate Trump, but If he had actually found crimes , he could and would have said have said so .

The whole crux of the Dems obstruction case is that he supposedly told staffers in a fit of pique that Mueller should be fired. That is a pretty weak obstruction case IMO . 

Not Quite.......

I love the spin you silly bastards put on anything Trump.

Below is his entire 9 minute statement in print, verbatim:

ROBERT S. MUELLER III, the special counsel: Good morning, everyone, and thank you for being here. Two years ago, the acting attorney general asked me to serve as special counsel and he created the special counsel’s office. The appointment order directed the office to investigate Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election. This included investigating any links or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the Trump campaign.

Now, I have not spoken publicly during our investigation. I am speaking out today because our investigation is complete. The attorney general has made the report on our investigation largely public. We are formally closing the special counsel’s office, and as well, I’m resigning from the Department of Justice to return to private life. I’ll make a few remarks about the results of our work. But beyond these few remarks, it is important that the office’s written work speak for itself. Let me begin where the appointment order begins, and that is interference in the 2016 presidential election.

As alleged by the grand jury in an indictment, Russian intelligence officers who are part of the Russian military, launched a concerted attack on our political system. The indictment alleges that they used sophisticated cybertechniques to hack into computers and networks used by the Clinton campaign. They stole private information and then released that information through fake online identities and through the organization WikiLeaks.

The releases were designed and timed to interfere with our election and to damage a presidential candidate. And at the same time, as the grand jury alleged in a separate indictment, a private Russian entity engaged in a social media operation, where Russian citizens posed as Americans in order to influence an election. These indictments contain allegations, and we are not commenting on the guilt or the innocence of any specific defendant. Every defendant is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.

The indictments allege, and the other activities in our report describe, efforts to interfere in our political system. They needed to be investigated and understood. And that is among the reasons why the Department of Justice established our office. That is also a reason we investigated efforts to obstruct the investigation. The matters we investigated were of paramount importance. It was critical for us to obtain full and accurate information from every person we questioned. When a subject of an investigation obstructs that investigation or lies to investigators, it strikes at the core of their government’s effort to find the truth and hold wrongdoers accountable.

Let me say a word about the report. The report has two parts, addressing the two main issues we were asked to investigate. The first volume of the report details numerous efforts emanating from Russia to influence the election. This volume includes a discussion of the Trump campaign’s response to this activity, as well as our conclusion that there was insufficient evidence to charge a broader conspiracy. And in the second volume, the report describes the results and analysis of our obstruction of justice investigation involving the president.

The order appointing me special counsel authorized us to investigate actions that could obstruct the investigation. We conducted that investigation, and we kept the office of the acting attorney general apprised of the progress of our work. And as set forth in the report, after that investigation, if we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so. We did not, however, make a determination as to whether the president did commit a crime.

The introduction to the Volume II of our report explains that decision. It explains that under longstanding department policy, a president cannot be charged with a federal crime while he is in office. That is unconstitutional. Even if the charge is kept under seal and hidden from public view, that, too, is prohibited. A special counsel’s office is part of the Department of Justice, and by regulation, it was bound by that department policy. Charging the president with a crime was therefore not an option we could consider. The department’s written opinion explaining the policy makes several important points that further informed our handling of the obstruction investigation. Those points are summarized in our report, and I will describe two of them for you.

First, the opinion explicitly permits the investigation of a sitting president, because it is important to preserve evidence while memories are fresh and documents available. Among other things, that evidence could be used if there were co-conspirators who could be charged now.

And second, the opinion says that the Constitution requires a process other than the criminal justice system to formally accuse a sitting president of wrongdoing. And beyond department policy, we were guided by principles of fairness. It would be unfair to potentially — it would be unfair to potentially accuse somebody of a crime when there can be no court resolution of the actual charge.

So that was Justice Department policy. Those were the principles under which we operated. And from them, we concluded that we would not reach a determination one way or the other about whether the president committed a crime. That is the office’s final position, and we will not comment on any other conclusions or hypotheticals about the president. We conducted an independent criminal investigation and reported the results to the attorney general, as required by department regulations.

The attorney general then concluded that it was appropriate to provide our report to Congress and to the American people. At one point in time, I requested that certain portions of the report be released and the attorney general preferred to make — preferred to make the entire report public all at once and we appreciate that the attorney general made the report largely public. And I certainly do not question the attorney general’s good faith in that decision.

Now, I hope and expect this to be the only time that I will speak to you in this manner. I am making that decision myself. No one has told me whether I can or should testify or speak further about this matter. There has been discussion about an appearance before Congress. Any testimony from this office would not go beyond our report. It contains our findings and analysis and the reasons for the decisions we made. We chose those words carefully, and the work speaks for itself. And the report is my testimony. I would not provide information beyond that which is already public in any appearance before Congress. In addition, access to our underlying work product is being decided in a process that does not involve our office.

So beyond what I’ve said here today and what is contained in our written work, I do not believe it is appropriate for me to speak further about the investigation or to comment on the actions of the Justice Department or Congress. And it’s for that reason I will not be taking questions today, as well.

Now, before I step away, I want to thank the attorneys, the F.B.I. agents, the analysts, the professional staff who helped us conduct this investigation in a fair and independent manner. These individuals who spent nearly two years with the special counsel’s office were of the highest integrity. And I will close by reiterating the central allegation of our indictments, that there were multiple, systematic efforts to interfere in our election. And that allegation deserves the attention of every American. Thank you. Thank you for being here today.

  • LMAO 2
  • JB 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mooler is nothing but an ambiguous punting pussy ….two years  30 million and a weak dribble is all he got...fuck you Mooler….

  • Yep 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, GOAT POTUS said:

@jb™ what would be the impeachment charge/charges?

That he eats cheeseburgers in his living quarters at night....fucking bastard...

  • Yep 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mueller came up empty in his quest to bring Trump down.

He did find Russian interference, but that doesn’t implicate Trump.

Impeachment? For what?

  • Yep 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, SaintRay said:

Mueller came up empty in his quest to bring Trump down.

He did find Russian interference, but that doesn’t implicate Trump.

Impeachment? For what?

I keep asking @jb™ ...but he won't answer. 

giphy.gif?cid=19f5b51a5cef3e17446f593573

  • Yep 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, GOAT POTUS said:

I keep asking @jb™ ...but he won't answer. 

giphy.gif?cid=19f5b51a5cef3e17446f593573

Jb is so dumb if cnn told him 2+2=5 he'd believe it.

And if Trump said 3+3=6 then that statement is racist and Trump needs to be impeached.

  • Yep 2
  • LMAO 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a legit question for you JB. If Trump committed crimes and obstructed justice, but couldn't be indicted because he's a sitting president, why didn't others in his cabinet and campaign(Don Jr.) get charged? There isn't a person here that believes Mueller wouldn't indict as many of Trump's guys as he could.

This is all political theater, if they try to impeach it will get stone walled in the Senate. This is all about the 2020 election, where the Dems will insist any Republican that supports Trump is a Russian agent.

  • Yep 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, DD: OG said:

I have a legit question for you JB. If Trump committed crimes and obstructed justice, but couldn't be indicted because he's a sitting president, why didn't others in his cabinet and campaign(Don Jr.) get charged? There isn't a person here that believes Mueller wouldn't indict as many of Trump's guys as he could.

This is all political theater, if they try to impeach it will get stone walled in the Senate. This is all about the 2020 election, where the Dems will insist any Republican that supports Trump is a Russian agent.

I doubt he'll answer...but here you go... @jb™

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

These two are butt buddies from hell , the epitome of self important arrogant assholes entrenched like a pig in shit into the morass of the deep state swamp. It is miserable fucks like this that are killing us....

 

Another Mueller-Comey One-Two Punch

GettyImages-171063911-1024x576.jpg

Most Americans are unaware of the long history of comradeship and chicanery between Special Counsel Robert Mueller and former FBI Director James Comey. For nearly two decades, the pair have held the same jobs, earned the same foes, and swaggered in the same rarified sphere of political prestige and privilege.

This week, the country has been treated to another reminder of how often the twosome operates in tandem.

n fact, their prior relationship should have disqualified Mueller from overseeing an investigation into one of Comey’s fiercest critics and the man who fired him, President Donald Trump. Without Comey helping to fabricate the Trump-Russia collusion narrative in 2016, there wouldn’t have been a Mueller investigation into fabricated Trump-Russia election collusion.

Further, Comey admitted he leaked his internal “memos” to the New York Times after his dismissal in May 2017 in an attempt to prompt the appointment of a special counsel. Comey also would be a witness in Mueller’s investigation; his extemporaneous memos that documented alleged conversations with the president in early 2017 are cited as evidence throughout the obstruction of justice section of Mueller’s report. The conflicts are rife and overshadow the legitimacy of the entire Mueller probe.

Peas in a Pod
Comey and Mueller share similar traits: The lofty rhetoric about the rule of law; the self-aggrandizement disguised as adulation of the government institutions they run; the lust for power; the superiority complex; the petty thirst for vengeance. They are New York natives who once claimed to be Republican. Both served as deputy attorney general for President George W. Bush and director of the FBI for President Barack Obama.

In his 2013 confirmation hearing, Comey was effusive in his praise of the man he would succeed at the FBI. “His legacy of candor and straightforwardness and integrity is one that I pledge to continue,” he told the Senate Judiciary Committee. After Mueller was appointed special counsel in May 2017, Comey referred to Mueller as “one of this country’s great, great pros.”

In 2004, when Mueller was FBI director and Comey was deputy attorney general, the twosome famously ambushed ailing Attorney General John Ashcroft in an intensive care unit to stop him from signing a reauthorization of a surveillance program they viewed as illegal. Mueller lauded Ashcroft for refusing to sign the reauthorization over objections by Bush’s top White House aides, and quietly commended Ashcroft at his bedside.

“The moment had taken a toll on me,” Comey wrote in his 2018 book, A Higher Loyalty. “My heart was racing. I was feeling slightly dizzy. But when I heard Bob Mueller’s tender words, I felt like crying. The law had held.”

Strategic Ambiguity, No Surprises
On March 21, the New York Times posted a lengthy column by Comey headlined, ‘What I Want from the Mueller Report.” Like a soothsayer, Comey wrote, “even though I believe Trump is morally unfit to be president of the United States, I’m not rooting for Mueller to demonstrate that he is a criminal. I’m also not rooting for Mueller to ‘clear’ the president.”

Magically, the very next day, without previous notice to the public, Mueller submitted his report to Attorney General William Barr; coincidentally, it neither charged nor “exonerated” (Mueller’s term) the president.

The Mueller-Comey one-two punch again is evident this week; the pair clearly organized a coordinated hit job against both President Trump and Barr, who currently is investigating possible misconduct by Comey and his FBI.

On Tuesday night, the Washington Post published yet another rant by the increasingly unhinged Comey wherein he basically called everyone a big fat dumb-dumb for not buying into his tales of collusion and his laughable justification for taking the unprecedented step of spying on a rival presidential candidate.

He can’t even keep his own story straight. In the column, Comey misrepresented the details of the George Papadopoulos exchange with a Clinton-tied Australian diplomat in the spring of 2016, among other fibs.

Comey begged for attaboys for not leaking the details of his sham investigation to the press before the election. All the talk in the “fringe media” about a covert attempt to infiltrate Trump’s campaign then carry off a soft coup against the president after he won, according to Comey, is nothing more than the work of conspiracy theorists.

Comey took another shot at Barr by scoffing at the notion that his agency “spied” on the Trump campaign, but then immediately explained how he asked “a federal judge for permission to surveil [Trump campaign aide Carter Page].”

And he referred to cheating spouses and criminal leakers who once worked for him as “good people.”

Parsing Mueller
Comey’s backup would arrive Wednesday morning in the form of a surprise announcement by Mueller. (It is probably safe to assume it did not come as a surprise to Comey.) In a short but wide-ranging statement by the 74-year-old prosecutor, Mueller essentially gave Congress the green light to impeach Donald Trump. Mueller delivered his remarks from the Justice Department while Barr is on business in Alaska; it was the first time in more than two years Mueller has made any kind of public statement.

After announcing his resignation from the department, Mueller reiterated his report’s finding that there was no conspiracy between the Trump campaign and the Russians. He then pivoted to the juicier volume of the report that addresses potential obstruction of justice by the president.

Here, much like Comey, Mueller displayed his politically-expedient grasp of how the legal system is supposed to work: “If we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so,” Mueller told the silent press corps. “We did not, however, make a determination as to whether the president did commit a crime.”

The reason, Mueller rather incoherently explained, is that Justice Department rules—last codified by the Office of Legal Counsel in 2000 based on both the Constitution and case law—prevented him from indicting the sitting president of the United States.

“Charging the president with a crime therefore was not an option we could consider,” Mueller emphasized. Then he served up the chum that the press and House Democrats were circling the water for: “The [OLC] opinion says that the Constitution requires a process other than the criminal justice system to formally accuse a sitting president of wrongdoing.”

That obviously would be impeachment. “A sitting President is immune from indictment as well as from further criminal process,” the OLC opinion states. “Where the President is concerned, only the House of Representatives has the authority to bring charges of criminal misconduct through the constitutionally sanctioned process of impeachment.”

Now thanks to another grudge-seeking joint stunt by Mueller and Comey, the Democrats and the media are recharged and ready to chase the folly of impeachment in time for the 2020 election.

And this week’s Mueller-Comey one-two punch serves another purpose: to obfuscate the real scandal, which is the pending investigation into how Comey’s FBI weaponized his agency against the Trump campaign and, ultimately, against the president himself.

Even though Mueller has stepped down as special counsel, it’s a fair bet to assume his days of double-teaming with Comey to settle scores are far from over.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/30/2019 at 8:17 AM, DD: OG said:

I have a legit question for you JB. If Trump committed crimes and obstructed justice, but couldn't be indicted because he's a sitting president, why didn't others in his cabinet and campaign(Don Jr.) get charged? There isn't a person here that believes Mueller wouldn't indict as many of Trump's guys as he could.

This is all political theater, if they try to impeach it will get stone walled in the Senate. This is all about the 2020 election, where the Dems will insist any Republican that supports Trump is a Russian agent.

 

On 5/30/2019 at 1:13 PM, GOAT POTUS said:

I doubt he'll answer...but here you go... @jb™

Told ya.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...