Robert Mueller investigation

[gcstomp]

"It seems to me there was once a letter written, similarly, by people who spoke poorly of SCOTUS nominee Kavanuagh's character only to be matched by a letter from people who favorably of Kavanaugh. That second letter, which didn't fit the desired narrative of CNN and others, was immediately dismissed. "
I would like to hear more about this. I recall the letter signed by 2400+ law professors, literally the entire field that trains ethics and law to newly minted lawyers, stating why Kavanaugh should not be confirmed, yes https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...rs-letter.html but what was the counter letter?

As far as this letter, 1st you have to admit the existence of pt 2 of the Mueller report. It is a real thing, it exists, and it is a step by step clear as day fleshing out of 10 cases of obstruction and it is not a close call. This is not a primarily D lineup, and prosecutors are holding to a high standard, and they are stating this is not a close call. It is not a matter where you can find a similar letter signed by 400 prosecutors, across party lines and admins, ever agreeing to anything except when it is such a clear cut case. Would like to see a similar letter, not just in this case, but ever.

[gcstomp]

These are not arguable close cases, we have a president to who sides with a foreign power over our own intel agencies, hides substance of his meetings with putin, and we learn the contents of these meetings from russian readouts of meetings.

We have a president who has gone to great lengths to cover his financial trail, this nonsense with his tax returns being blocked to be released to congress is not defendable.

Barr has a unique, way out there view of an imperial presidency and his 19 page memo that Barr submitted to land job that outlined how Mueller investigation should not stand, he then gets job and promptly ends investigation, issues a summary exoneration in less than 2 days despite not having read report, never mind underlying evidence.

Cohen started day 1 of his sentence for the crimes that trump committed, in the paperwork trump is un-indicted co conspirator 1, the courts did not dispute the role of trump, his guilt is simply not chargable in current office.

One thing is clear, putin has won. putin has secured victory in fronts unimaginable even 2 years ago, and we can discuss that, or we can pretend this is a case of debate. Support of this person in office is a deliberate blindness to how this joke came to be.

[Bernie Brewer]

"It seems to me there was once a letter written, similarly, by people who spoke poorly of SCOTUS nominee Kavanuagh's character only to be matched by a letter from people who favorably of Kavanaugh. That second letter, which didn't fit the desired narrative of CNN and others, was immediately dismissed. "
I would like to hear more about this. I recall the letter signed by 2400+ law professors, literally the entire field that trains ethics and law to newly minted lawyers, stating why Kavanaugh should not be confirmed, yes https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...rs-letter.html but what was the counter letter?

As far as this letter, 1st you have to admit the existence of pt 2 of the Mueller report. It is a real thing, it exists, and it is a step by step clear as day fleshing out of 10 cases of obstruction and it is not a close call. This is not a primarily D lineup, and prosecutors are holding to a high standard, and they are stating this is not a close call. It is not a matter where you can find a similar letter signed by 400 prosecutors, across party lines and admins, ever agreeing to anything except when it is such a clear cut case. Would like to see a similar letter, not just in this case, but ever.

So we get to re-litigate the Kavanaugh hearings now? And, honestly, you don’t recall the letter from people who actually knew Kavanuagh during high school and college that said they never saw the conduct from Kavanaugh of which Prof. Ford accused him. Must’ve not gotten the coverage as the letter signed “literally the entire field that trains ethics and law to newly minted lawyers”. I’m not sure but don’t academics typically lean conservative.

Your assessment of Part 2 of the Mueller Report, which sounds like it comes directly from Democrat talking points, you say it discusses potential efforts to obstruct. But obstruction of what?

About the only thing I agree with you on is Putin did win.

[Bernie Brewer]

These are not arguable close cases, we have a president to who sides with a foreign power over our own intel agencies, hides substance of his meetings with putin, and we learn the contents of these meetings from russian readouts of meetings.

We have a president who has gone to great lengths to cover his financial trail, this nonsense with his tax returns being blocked to be released to congress is not defendable.

Barr has a unique, way out there view of an imperial presidency and his 19 page memo that Barr submitted to land job that outlined how Mueller investigation should not stand, he then gets job and promptly ends investigation, issues a summary exoneration in less than 2 days despite not having read report, never mind underlying evidence.

Cohen started day 1 of his sentence for the crimes that trump committed, in the paperwork trump is un-indicted co conspirator 1, the courts did not dispute the role of trump, his guilt is simply not chargable in current office.

One thing is clear, putin has won. putin has secured victory in fronts unimaginable even 2 years ago, and we can discuss that, or we can pretend this is a case of debate. Support of this person in office is a deliberate blindness to how this joke came to be.

You’re kinda loose with facts in the bolded section. Cohen plead guilty to tax evasion and making false statements to banks to obtain credit, neither of which have anything to do with Trump. He also plead to lying to congress, he said to protect Trump, about the dates between which he held discussions with Russian officials about a potential Trump project. This is also not a crime committed by Trump. Therefore, we can conclude that since these do not apply to the “Conspirator 1” label, Trump isn’t guilty of these crime nor would he need to be protected by any DOJ rules. Regarding campaign finance violations, for which Cohen also plead, they are related to paying hush money to Stormy and the Playboy model on behalf of Trump. To this point no one has proven that Trump told him to make those payments. I’m sure he did, and everyone speculates this, but it’s still a campaign finance violation, not typically punishable by jail time. If campaign finance violations get you sent to prison, maybe Trump and Obama can be bunk mates.

[baldgriff]

Regarding campaign finance violations, for which Cohen also plead, they are related to paying hush money to Stormy and the Playboy model on behalf of Trump. To this point no one has proven that Trump told him to make those payments. I’m sure he did, and everyone speculates this, but it’s still a campaign finance violation, not typically punishable by jail time. If campaign finance violations get you sent to prison, maybe Trump and Obama can be bunk mates.

Unless your name is DiNesh D'Souza. Then you get time and a fine.
"On May 20, 2014 D'Souza pleaded guilty to one felony count of making illegal contributions in the names of others. On September 23, 2014, the court sentenced D'Souza to five years probation, eight months in a halfway house (referred to as a "community confinement center") and a $30,000 fine."

I have to admit, since Im not able to post frequently, watching the circle jerk of continued bloviating about how Trump Sucks - Barr is a puppet - and all sorts of BS about how Trump is the one at fault for conspiracy when Mueller couldnt actually prove enough to get an indictment that there was any actual conspiracy (which was supposed to be the thrust of the investigation). So Mueller punts and says - it doesnt prove innocence (which as someone earlier stated was supposed to be the presumption of the law).

There are plenty here on the conservative/moderate side that have stated Trump is a dick and not a very nice guy, and wont defend him. We are now over 2 years into this administration and the amount of "butthurt" on the D side still trying to figure out how Hillary lost and Trump won is so totally astounding. The Russians may have in fact interfered. Just as we do in the various leadership decisions in countries that we choose to mess with. Our government has spent over 25million dollars on a case that is based on findings in a dossier that even many Dems agree are specious - to be kind.

Personally, Trump is a flaming dumpster fire of a person - NOT the best guy, NOT the smartest, NOT the best with words....... Yet because the Dems (Schumer) wont just walk away - and here we are again - framing all of this as a 2 sided coin. One side the Dems can use to raise more funds and the other side the Repubs can leverage in the same manner.

This is a shit show - and again another great way for the parties to make shit tons of money. Ultimately - nothing is going to happen here. Its been confirmed that Trump is a pile of shit. Its also been confirmed that we are still trying to find ways to explain away HRC losing.

Can we move on and actually take care of our country?? Please??

[gcstomp]

Relit kavanaugh? I quoted where you brought up a strange letter saying there was a similar letter to one signed by 2400 law professors, across party lines as this was clearly not partisan, that cnn ignored. I honestly had no idea what you were talking about. Turns out there wasnt. Same as the letter signed by 400 plus, apparently now over 500 prior dept of Justice employees agains across party lines as this is not partisan , that the entire pt 2 of mueller report is clear with case after case of obstruction and it is not a close call at all. As far as bald post that is some disgusing and error filled thought.

[onejayhawk]

I doubt there are many prosecutors at all who will say they would NOT indict.

but that's a bug, not a feature.

I think the average person who finds out that Martha Stewart was indicted on securities fraud, only to have it dismissed by the judge, yet went to jail for obstruction of an investigation lacking an underlying crime, thinks that is a crappy result - and rightly so. Stewart, like Trump, did all sorts of terribly unethical things. But just because prosecutors love to, well, prosecute doesn't make them the gold standard for right and wrong. They enjoy flexing their muscle even on a powerful figure like Stewart because they want people to fear their power (and we do).

The Trump issue gets even more complicated because the rationale for the origination of the investigation may in part have been based on a dossier that is strange and suspicious, to be charitable. If the original search - Trump colluding with Russia - doesn't pan out AND the justification for the investigation has any taint to it......

Trump's jury will be the American people in 2020.

The dossier was a cover up for an investigation already months old. Exactly why they started surveilling Trump is an unanswered question because every reason posed so far is full of holes. They threw out George Papadopoulos for an earlier date, but he was the target of at least two different agents-the female known as Azra Turk and Prof Halper. Things were already well developed by that point.

At no point was probable cause evidence presented. The closest thing we have is the FISA court applications which are known to be based on the Steele dossier. Contrast Martha Stewart.

As for unethical, what did Trump do but loudly proclaim his innocence? He allowed his personal attorney to be grilled for many hours, answered questions in writing, provided far over a million documents and never attempted to claim privilege. He and the White House staff were models of cooperation.

J

[gcstomp]

Obstruction of what? This is too much. You are in the camp that you need to prove a crime to have obstruction so you get to say pt 2 of mueller report where case after case of obstruction is laid out with more evidence than is ever brought in indictable cases just can be ignored. The obstruction is entire reason for letter by 500 dept of justice employees. It is not a situation where it was a close call. I mean you are bringing up letter but also ignoring content and reason for letter. You really just say obstruction of what and call it a d talking point.

[Bernie Brewer]

Obstruction of what? This is too much. You are in the camp that you need to prove a crime to have obstruction so you get to say pt 2 of mueller report where case after case of obstruction is laid out with more evidence than is ever brought in indictable cases just can be ignored. The obstruction is entire reason for letter by 500 dept of justice employees. It is not a situation where it was a close call. I mean you are bringing up letter but also ignoring content and reason for letter. You really just say obstruction of what and call it a d talking point.

Stomp - circling back to your previous statement of “fact” that no letter exists supporting Kavanaugh, well, here’s the letter. Now I’ll grant you it isn’t a letter from the august group you seem to place such credence in, it’s just a letter from women who knew or know him.

https://www-m.cnn.com/2018/09/18/pol...SQfryW5ikBDPo-

https://www.weeklystandard.com/virgi...rett-kavanaugh

http://confirmkavanaugh.com/wp-conte...cts-Letter.pdf


So apparently you put more stock in an assessment of his character and ability to serve faithfully and effectively on people who largely never met him, signed a group letter after being prejudiced regarding his “judicial temperament” after he responded to the blatant and vile attempts by Dems (your guys) to malign his reputation and character assassinate him versus people who know/knew him and could speak to the exact claims labeled against him, who immediately stood up for him, many of which were not Republicans.

To this post, your inability to accept that others simply don’t see/read the Mueller report through your viewing lens is what’s shocking. It’s why shitheads like Trump get elected in the first place. Those of us in the middle or on the right, none of whom actually support Trump, aren’t denying facts. I would suggest that you’re bending them to support your desired outcome or your team’s spin. You’re in the camp of desperation that wants, no, I’ll say needs, to find something. I’m mean how can there not be something, they investigated him; therefore, obviously, he did something wrong. It’s like when several posters scolded some of us for suggesting that the FBI would have agents act inappropriately. I mean because no FBI agent would ever, um, well, never mind. And, because no Dem would ever abuse their authority.

[Bernie Brewer]

I agree, but when you get the Stable Genius himself floating out -- numerous times, I might add -- that he should have a six-year term, or that two years were "stollen" from him, or that there is a widespread conspiracy by Deep State Democrats to have literally millions of people vote numerous times -- can we be 100% confident that he will peacefully hand over power if he were to lose? I don't think Pelosi is wrong to fear this.

This is what confuses me. The Democrats would like everyone to believe he’s an idiot 95% of the time. But, the other 5%, or when it helps their cause, he’s suddenly he’s an evil genius.

Face it, he has no plan. And yet, somehow, he’s the evil mastermind that will cause a militarily supported coup to maintain power after 2020. IMO, about the only real thing he’s effective at, I won’t say good at, is trolling Democrats.

This is another silly Democratic talking point to drum up support in money and votes. It will go down in the annals of history along with “He’s going to fire Mueller, we need to stop him!” or “He’ll never accept the results of the 2016 election, when he loses.”

[onejayhawk]

Obstruction of what? This is too much. You are in the camp that you need to prove a crime to have obstruction so you get to say pt 2 of mueller report where case after case of obstruction is laid out with more evidence than is ever brought in indictable cases just can be ignored. The obstruction is entire reason for letter by 500 dept of justice employees. It is not a situation where it was a close call. I mean you are bringing up letter but also ignoring content and reason for letter. You really just say obstruction of what and call it a d talking point.

Don't knock those people. They may be misstating but they're right. There must be a valid search.

This is Constitutional, the 4th Amendment prohibiting unreasonable searches. Perhaps you have heard of search warrants and the need to obtain one. When AG Barr says he needs to to investigate the origins of the investigation, he's talking about the possibility that DoJ and FBI willingly and knowingly violated various people's Constitutional rights. Also, if the search is improper, there can be no obstruction, a principal sometimes called the poisoned tree. In this matter, there have been references to a poisoned forest.

J

[B-Fly]

Don't knock those people. They may be misstating but they're right. There must be a valid search.

This is Constitutional, the 4th Amendment prohibiting unreasonable searches. Perhaps you have heard of search warrants and the need to obtain one. When AG Barr says he needs to to investigate the origins of the investigation, he's talking about the possibility that DoJ and FBI willingly and knowingly violated various people's Constitutional rights. Also, if the search is improper, there can be no obstruction, a principal sometimes called the poisoned tree. In this matter, there have been references to a poisoned forest.

J

Wow is that a terrible misapplication of the "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine. "Fruit of the poisonous tree" is only about admissibility of evidence. If evidence was collected illegally, and that evidence led to the discovery of other evidence, then both the illegally obtained evidence and its "fruits" can be deemed inadmissible. There is no legitimate argument that illegal gathering of evidence (if it occurred) would somehow mean that it's all well and good for a suspect to engage in obstruction like witness tampering or intimidation or destruction of evidence. That's just a b.s. argument.

[gcstomp]

bernie, why did you post this link https://www-m.cnn.com/2018/09/18/pol...SQfryW5ikBDPo- of women supporting Ford. Of course Ford is believable, as this post shows, but how does that show any weight for or against the letter signed by the 2400+ law professors across party lines that clearly state Kavanaugh demonstrated he is unfit?

Your reading now, I think, is that Mueller pt 2 report can be read in another way, a way that eludes me, as well as the 500+ retired prosecutors across party lines, this is not political as I continually say, that there exists more than enough evidence from report to indict in case after case of obstruction as outlined. You are saying something about desperation looking for cause, as if you cannot process that again the report exists, with Mueller calling for congress to investigate or for this to be otherwise tabled until trump can be charged.

There really isnt another way to process what happened here. Mueller was charged with investigating without an option to indict regardless of results. You then produce odd paragraphs insisting this is partisan. I think thats enough for today, if you can really read report as something besides an ovbious spoon feeding of cases that would be indictments but for the criminal being sitting president, then what more can be said.

[gcstomp]

just as a sign off, i really cannot believe how dismissive of facts, of non partisan reality you hold, bernie. 500+ retired prosecutors from doj, people beholden to no one, across admins and political lines, calling out Barr, who is trying to cover up the work of Mueller. this is not a partisan group, and this isnt something that ever happens, but you are dismissive as if a letter of support from some friends counters this?

your pov is such you process every word in a completely different framework of meaning to such an extent there really isnt a reason for us to converse, is there? i can state your free thought paragraphs claiming you are in middle and the report is partisan and the noise is desperation looking for cause is pretty gross that someone can really process what is happening in this unique time in history the way that you do.

[Bernie Brewer]

bernie, why did you post this link https://www-m.cnn.com/2018/09/18/pol...SQfryW5ikBDPo- of women supporting Ford. Of course Ford is believable, as this post shows, but how does that show any weight for or against the letter signed by the 2400+ law professors across party lines that clearly state Kavanaugh demonstrated he is unfit?

Your reading now, I think, is that Mueller pt 2 report can be read in another way, a way that eludes me, as well as the 500+ retired prosecutors across party lines, this is not political as I continually say, that there exists more than enough evidence from report to indict in case after case of obstruction as outlined. You are saying something about desperation looking for cause, as if you cannot process that again the report exists, with Mueller calling for congress to investigate or for this to be otherwise tabled until trump can be charged.

There really isnt another way to process what happened here. Mueller was charged with investigating without an option to indict regardless of results. You then produce odd paragraphs insisting this is partisan. I think thats enough for today, if you can really read report as something besides an ovbious spoon feeding of cases that would be indictments but for the criminal being sitting president, then what more can be said.

My point was that CNN reported the shit out of one letter and nary a mention of the other, except to question its legitimacy. You’ve expressed your opinion. I simply don’t agree. “Odd paragraph,” that’s good stuff.