Jinx 2 said:

---

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/05/30/mueller-ruins-hannitys-parade-deception/?utm_term=.fc80b4040bca&wpisrc=nl_popns_05232019_t&wpmm=1

On Wednesday night, Fox News host Sean Hannity savaged special counsel Robert S. Mueller III for his statement earlier in the day on the findings of his nearly two-year investigation. "Now, today, he officially resigned from the Office of Special Counsel but not before showing the world, of course, what we already know on this program, his partisan hackery true colors, if you will," said Hannity, in his typical spitfire delivery.

That particular attack from Hannity appears to stem from a specific comment of Mueller's: Referring to a legal opinion of the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, Mueller explained how his team handled findings about Trump's possible obstruction of justice. "The opinion says that the Constitution requires a process other than the criminal-justice system to formally accuse a sitting president of wrongdoing," said Mueller. Quite a few people have interpreted that statement as an endorsement of congressional impeachment proceedings.

"You have career bureaucrat, nothing more than a Trump-hating partisan, who is now all but cheering for impeachment based on nothing," said Hannity of Mueller, a Republican.

Another pointed remark from the special counsel also appeared to irk the Fox News host: "If we had had the 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," said Mueller on Wednesday. Riffing and ripping, Hannity decided to assert his all-encompassing expertise and wisdom: "Number one, Mr. Mueller doesn't know the law. He's basically full of crap, and the special counsel's regulations, they are very clear," said Hannity.

Guest Alan Dershowitz also opined on Mueller's we-would-have-said-so remark. "That was absolutely inappropriate for him to say," said the Harvard Law professor.

Thing is, Mueller had already said as much in his report, which hit the public realm more than a month before his statement. Here's the relevant passage from Volume II of the report: "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." As far as the supposed incitement to impeachment, the Mueller report had already cited the OLC opinion.

And yet! When Mueller's report was released (with redactions) on April 18, Hannity went on air with these words, among many others: "We begin tonight with a Fox News alert. The witch hunt is officially over. The Mueller report is out. And the president of the United States has been totally and completely vindicated," said Hannity on that night. More: "Tonight, thankfully, for the sake of this country, truth has prevailed. As the president's attorneys put it, quote: This vindication of the president is an important step forward for the country and a strong reminder that this type of abuse must never be permitted to occur again."

The "truth" that prevailed in the Mueller report on April 18, of course, is the same "truth" that prevailed in Mueller's Wednesday appearance. As the special counsel stated, his report is his testimony; if he were forced to testify before Congress, he would not say anything that went beyond his written findings. Which is to say, the quotes that so angered Hannity and his guests on Wednesday have been part of the public record for nearly five weeks.

So what happened? Television happened: Mueller stood before the cameras and summarized his findings. The affair was covered by every media outlet of consequence. It was such an event that the major cable news networks speculated about it for more than an hour before it happened. They couldn't talk about anything else, even though it hadn't even happened yet.

This very spectacle the special counsel, in his first public remarks on the investigation forced Hannity and many others to reckon with the Mueller team's actual findings. As opposed to the findings that Hannity had been announcing to his viewers in the intervening weeks:

• On May 2: "The witch hunt is done. Mueller has gone home. No collusion, no obstruction."
• On May 22: "We now have four separate investigations that have all cleared President Trump of the spurious charges leveled against him and his campaign. No collusion, fact. No obstruction, fact."
• On May 27: "Now, the truth has been laid bare for all to see. No collusion. No obstruction. No truth to the lies that have been peddled daily."

Folks who place trust in Hannity and there are many might have been confused, accordingly, upon hearing Mueller state, "If we had had the confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so." So Hannity had to reassure his fans: Mueller doesn't know what he's talking about.

Some other precincts of Fox News reported honestly on Mueller's appearance, including anchor Bret Baier and judicial analyst Andrew Napolitano. As Quinta Jurecic notes in the Atlantic, however, the news value of Wednesday lay not in the information which has been around for weeks but rather in the step taken by Mueller to highlight it.

Propagating misinformation, as it turns out, is a complicated business. To properly air the "no collusion" mantra, Hannity has to hype the Mueller probe's investigative thoroughness. To properly air the "no obstruction" mantra, Hannity must simultaneously aver that Mueller is "basically full of crap." It's one of the luxuries of Hannity's bubbled existence at Fox News that he will never be forced to choose between the two.

---

Mueller's report was welcomed because the evidence exonerated Trump...even if Mueller himself is unwilling to do so.

HuMcK said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Great lefties... let's set another new precedent that subjective interpretations are equivalent to strong statements or facts which is what every single one of you is doing.

---

Do you even understand or care what kind of precedent you're advocating for?

The Republican view right now is seemingly that A) obstruction of an investigation by POTUS is not a crime "if he believes he did nothing wrong", as if every criminal ever doesn't proclaim "I didn't do it", B) since POTUS cannot be charged he also should not ever be investigated, and a little bit of C) any investigation of Trump by persons other than loyal Republicans (even though Mueller and Comey were Republicans...) is inherently invalid and possibly a crime against the State.

I swear, Trump supporters seem to spend a majority of their time and energy arguing for why laws shouldn't apply to Trump for various reasons. Sometimes I wish y'all would just cut through the bull and admit that what you really want is a King Trump that stands above the law.

---

That is not the Republican view. Some actions, like lying to investigators, are inherently wrong. Others, like firing an FBI director, are perfectly legitimate in themselves. If you want to build an obstruction case on the latter sort of conduct, that's when there needs to be some validity to the underlying allegations.

---

Firing Comey is one thing, asking him to lay off investigating someone and then firing him after he didn't comply is something else. Dangling pardons to buy the silence of a witness (which apparently was successful as pertains to Manafort, and less so with Flynn) is also potentially an obstructive act. Ordering minions to "take control" of an investigation that threatens his interests is also extremely questionable.

Essentially what y'all are aiming for is to legalize obstruction that is successful. With this brand new standard where you have to prove an underlying crime to charge obstruction (which DoJ is currently not adhering to in cases that don't involve POTUS btw), there is almost no downside to obstructing investigations as long as you make sure it can't find what it was looking for. Nevermind that there shouldn't even be a need to obstruct in the first place is one truly believed there isn't any wrongdoing to find...

---

There wasn't a need to obstruct in the first place. Trump had plenty of excellent reasons to fire Comey that had nothing to do with Russian boogeymen. Essentially what we are aiming for is to legalize "obstruction" that isn't obstruction (which is already legal in cases that don't involve POTUS).

---

You sure about that? Mueller thinks otherwise.

Mueller's report, Part 2, pg 76: "[E]vidence does indicate that a thorough FBI investigation would uncover facts about the campaign and the President personally that the President could have understood to be crimes or that would give rise to personal and political concerns."

---

Yet Mueller didn't even suggest in his report testing DOJ policy in court as to indicting a sitting president because he had nothing on which to indict. He couldn't even note in his report any criminal activity that would rise for indictment but for the DOJ policy.

Don't let your TDS make you set yourself on fire.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/05/30/mueller-ruins-hannitys-parade-deception/?utm_term=.fc80b4040bca&wpisrc=nl_popns_05232019_t&wpmm=1

On Wednesday night, Fox News host Sean Hannity savaged special counsel Robert S. Mueller III for his statement earlier in the day on the findings of his nearly two-year investigation. "Now, today, he officially resigned from the Office of Special Counsel but not before showing the world, of course, what we already know on this program, his partisan hackery true colors, if you will," said Hannity, in his typical spitfire delivery.

That particular attack from Hannity appears to stem from a specific comment of Mueller's: Referring to a legal opinion of the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, Mueller explained how his team handled findings about Trump's possible obstruction of justice. "The opinion says that the Constitution requires a process other than the criminal-justice system to formally accuse a sitting president of wrongdoing," said Mueller. Quite a few people have interpreted that statement as an endorsement of congressional impeachment proceedings.

"You have career bureaucrat, nothing more than a Trump-hating partisan, who is now all but cheering for impeachment based on nothing," said Hannity of Mueller, a Republican.

Another pointed remark from the special counsel also appeared to irk the Fox News host: "If we had had the 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," said Mueller on Wednesday. Riffing and ripping, Hannity decided to assert his all-encompassing expertise and wisdom: "Number one, Mr. Mueller doesn't know the law. He's basically full of crap, and the special counsel's regulations, they are very clear," said Hannity.

Guest Alan Dershowitz also opined on Mueller's we-would-have-said-so remark. "That was absolutely inappropriate for him to say," said the Harvard Law professor.

Thing is, Mueller had already said as much in his report, which hit the public realm more than a month before his statement. Here's the relevant passage from Volume II of the report: "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." As far as the supposed incitement to impeachment, the Mueller report had already cited the OLC opinion.

And yet! When Mueller's report was released (with redactions) on April 18, Hannity went on air with these words, among many others: "We begin tonight with a Fox News alert. The witch hunt is officially over. The Mueller report is out. And the president of the United States has been totally and completely vindicated," said Hannity on that night. More: "Tonight, thankfully, for the sake of this country, truth has prevailed. As the president's attorneys put it, quote: This vindication of the president is an important step forward for the country and a strong reminder that this type of abuse must never be permitted to occur again."

The "truth" that prevailed in the Mueller report on April 18, of course, is the same "truth" that prevailed in Mueller's Wednesday appearance. As the special counsel stated, his report is his testimony; if he were forced to testify before Congress, he would not say anything that went beyond his written findings. Which is to say, the quotes that so angered Hannity and his guests on Wednesday have been part of the public record for nearly five weeks.

So what happened? Television happened: Mueller stood before the cameras and summarized his findings. The affair was covered by every media outlet of consequence. It was such an event that the major cable news networks speculated about it for more than an hour before it happened. They couldn't talk about anything else, even though it hadn't even happened yet.

This very spectacle the special counsel, in his first public remarks on the investigation forced Hannity and many others to reckon with the Mueller team's actual findings. As opposed to the findings that Hannity had been announcing to his viewers in the intervening weeks:

• On May 2: "The witch hunt is done. Mueller has gone home. No collusion, no obstruction."
• On May 22: "We now have four separate investigations that have all cleared President Trump of the spurious charges leveled against him and his campaign. No collusion, fact. No obstruction, fact."
• On May 27: "Now, the truth has been laid bare for all to see. No collusion. No obstruction. No truth to the lies that have been peddled daily."

Folks who place trust in Hannity and there are many might have been confused, accordingly, upon hearing Mueller state, "If we had had the confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so." So Hannity had to reassure his fans: Mueller doesn't know what he's talking about.

Some other precincts of Fox News reported honestly on Mueller's appearance, including anchor Bret Baier and judicial analyst Andrew Napolitano. As Quinta Jurecic notes in the Atlantic, however, the news value of Wednesday lay not in the information which has been around for weeks but rather in the step taken by Mueller to highlight it.

Propagating misinformation, as it turns out, is a complicated business. To properly air the "no collusion" mantra, Hannity has to hype the Mueller probe's investigative thoroughness. To properly air the "no obstruction" mantra, Hannity must simultaneously aver that Mueller is "basically full of crap." It's one of the luxuries of Hannity's bubbled existence at Fox News that he will never be forced to choose between the two.

---

Mueller's report was welcomed because the evidence exonerated Trump...even if Mueller himself is unwilling to do so.

---

You need to read the second part of the report. It is a criminal referral not an exoneration.

Sam Lowry said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Great lefties... let's set another new precedent that subjective interpretations are equivalent to strong statements or facts which is what every single one of you is doing.

---

Do you even understand or care what kind of precedent you're advocating for?

The Republican view right now is seemingly that A) obstruction of an investigation by POTUS is not a crime "if he believes he did nothing wrong", as if every criminal ever doesn't proclaim "I didn't do it", B) since POTUS cannot be charged he also should not ever be investigated, and a little bit of C) any investigation of Trump by persons other than loyal Republicans (even though Mueller and Comey were Republicans...) is inherently invalid and possibly a crime against the State.

I swear, Trump supporters seem to spend a majority of their time and energy arguing for why laws shouldn't apply to Trump for various reasons. Sometimes I wish y'all would just cut through the bull and admit that what you really want is a King Trump that stands above the law.

---

That is not the Republican view. Some actions, like lying to investigators, are inherently wrong. Others, like firing an FBI director, are perfectly legitimate in themselves. If you want to build an obstruction case on the latter sort of conduct, that's when there needs to be some validity to the underlying allegations.

---

Firing Comey is one thing, asking him to lay off investigating someone and then firing him after he didn't comply is something else. Dangling pardons to buy the silence of a witness (which apparently was successful as pertains to Manafort, and less so with Flynn) is also potentially an obstructive act. Ordering minions to "take control" of an investigation that threatens his interests is also extremely questionable.

Essentially what y'all are aiming for is to legalize obstruction that is successful. With this brand new standard where you have to prove an underlying crime to charge obstruction (which DoJ is currently not adhering to in cases that don't involve POTUS btw), there is almost no downside to obstructing investigations as long as you make sure it can't find what it was looking for. Nevermind that there shouldn't even be a need to obstruct in the first place is one truly believed there isn't any wrongdoing to find...

---

There wasn't a need to obstruct in the first place. Trump had plenty of excellent reasons to fire Comey that had nothing to do with Russian boogeymen. Essentially what we are aiming for is to legalize "obstruction" that isn't obstruction (which is already legal in cases that don't involve POTUS).

---

You sure about that? Mueller thinks otherwise.

Mueller's report, Part 2, pg 76: "[E]vidence does indicate that a thorough FBI investigation would uncover facts about the campaign and the President personally that the President could have understood to be crimes or that would give rise to personal and political concerns."

---

It's impossible to say what Mueller thinks based on a sentence as vague and speculative as that one. Mueller's job wasn't to publish 200 pages of innuendo. If he thought the evidence supported an obstruction charge, he should have said so.

---

You can't make a man see something he refuses to believe exists, but it's pretty obvious what Mueller was saying with that sentence: Trump was scared of the investigation because he thought it might uncover crimes that implicated him.

And there's that neat little Catch-22 again. "If Trump did it Mueller would have charged him, but a sitting POTUS cannot be charged with a crime, therefore Trump is innocent because Mueller decided not to charge him", and on and on it goes in circles. Mueller's statement yesterday was basically him crying out for people to read the Report, but it continues to be painfully obvious that most Republicans aren't interested in reading it or facing the implications at all.

Lol, you're out of your league here quash.

Doc Holliday said:

---

Lol, you're out of your league here quash.

---

Yeah, my Baylor JD is no match for your OAN birdcage liner.

HuMcK said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Great lefties... let's set another new precedent that subjective interpretations are equivalent to strong statements or facts which is what every single one of you is doing.

---

Do you even understand or care what kind of precedent you're advocating for?

The Republican view right now is seemingly that A) obstruction of an investigation by POTUS is not a crime "if he believes he did nothing wrong", as if every criminal ever doesn't proclaim "I didn't do it", B) since POTUS cannot be charged he also should not ever be investigated, and a little bit of C) any investigation of Trump by persons other than loyal Republicans (even though Mueller and Comey were Republicans...) is inherently invalid and possibly a crime against the State.

I swear, Trump supporters seem to spend a majority of their time and energy arguing for why laws shouldn't apply to Trump for various reasons. Sometimes I wish y'all would just cut through the bull and admit that what you really want is a King Trump that stands above the law.

---

That is not the Republican view. Some actions, like lying to investigators, are inherently wrong. Others, like firing an FBI director, are perfectly legitimate in themselves. If you want to build an obstruction case on the latter sort of conduct, that's when there needs to be some validity to the underlying allegations.

---

Firing Comey is one thing, asking him to lay off investigating someone and then firing him after he didn't comply is something else. Dangling pardons to buy the silence of a witness (which apparently was successful as pertains to Manafort, and less so with Flynn) is also potentially an obstructive act. Ordering minions to "take control" of an investigation that threatens his interests is also extremely questionable.

Essentially what y'all are aiming for is to legalize obstruction that is successful. With this brand new standard where you have to prove an underlying crime to charge obstruction (which DoJ is currently not adhering to in cases that don't involve POTUS btw), there is almost no downside to obstructing investigations as long as you make sure it can't find what it was looking for. Nevermind that there shouldn't even be a need to obstruct in the first place is one truly believed there isn't any wrongdoing to find...

---

There wasn't a need to obstruct in the first place. Trump had plenty of excellent reasons to fire Comey that had nothing to do with Russian boogeymen. Essentially what we are aiming for is to legalize "obstruction" that isn't obstruction (which is already legal in cases that don't involve POTUS).

---

You sure about that? Mueller thinks otherwise.

Mueller's report, Part 2, pg 76: "[E]vidence does indicate that a thorough FBI investigation would uncover facts about the campaign and the President personally that the President could have understood to be crimes or that would give rise to personal and political concerns."

---

It's impossible to say what Mueller thinks based on a sentence as vague and speculative as that one. Mueller's job wasn't to publish 200 pages of innuendo. If he thought the evidence supported an obstruction charge, he should have said so.

---

You can't make a man see something he refuses to believe exists, but it's pretty obvious what Mueller was saying with that sentence: Trump was scared of the investigation because he thought it might uncover crimes that implicated him.

And there's that neat little Catch-22 again. "If Trump did it Mueller would have charged him, but a sitting POTUS cannot be charged with a crime, therefore Trump is innocent because Mueller decided not to charge him", and on and on it goes in circles. Mueller's statement yesterday was basically him crying out for people to read the Report, but it continues to be painfully obvious that most Republicans aren't interested in reading it or facing the implications at all.

---

Let me help resolve the Catch-22 regarding Mueller's lack of options: It. Is. Not. True.

Mueller not only could, but would have recommended charges if the evidence had supported it.

quash said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/05/30/mueller-ruins-hannitys-parade-deception/?utm_term=.fc80b4040bca&wpisrc=nl_popns_05232019_t&wpmm=1

On Wednesday night, Fox News host Sean Hannity savaged special counsel Robert S. Mueller III for his statement earlier in the day on the findings of his nearly two-year investigation. "Now, today, he officially resigned from the Office of Special Counsel but not before showing the world, of course, what we already know on this program, his partisan hackery true colors, if you will," said Hannity, in his typical spitfire delivery.

That particular attack from Hannity appears to stem from a specific comment of Mueller's: Referring to a legal opinion of the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, Mueller explained how his team handled findings about Trump's possible obstruction of justice. "The opinion says that the Constitution requires a process other than the criminal-justice system to formally accuse a sitting president of wrongdoing," said Mueller. Quite a few people have interpreted that statement as an endorsement of congressional impeachment proceedings.

"You have career bureaucrat, nothing more than a Trump-hating partisan, who is now all but cheering for impeachment based on nothing," said Hannity of Mueller, a Republican.

Another pointed remark from the special counsel also appeared to irk the Fox News host: "If we had had the 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," said Mueller on Wednesday. Riffing and ripping, Hannity decided to assert his all-encompassing expertise and wisdom: "Number one, Mr. Mueller doesn't know the law. He's basically full of crap, and the special counsel's regulations, they are very clear," said Hannity.

Guest Alan Dershowitz also opined on Mueller's we-would-have-said-so remark. "That was absolutely inappropriate for him to say," said the Harvard Law professor.

Thing is, Mueller had already said as much in his report, which hit the public realm more than a month before his statement. Here's the relevant passage from Volume II of the report: "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." As far as the supposed incitement to impeachment, the Mueller report had already cited the OLC opinion.

And yet! When Mueller's report was released (with redactions) on April 18, Hannity went on air with these words, among many others: "We begin tonight with a Fox News alert. The witch hunt is officially over. The Mueller report is out. And the president of the United States has been totally and completely vindicated," said Hannity on that night. More: "Tonight, thankfully, for the sake of this country, truth has prevailed. As the president's attorneys put it, quote: This vindication of the president is an important step forward for the country and a strong reminder that this type of abuse must never be permitted to occur again."

The "truth" that prevailed in the Mueller report on April 18, of course, is the same "truth" that prevailed in Mueller's Wednesday appearance. As the special counsel stated, his report is his testimony; if he were forced to testify before Congress, he would not say anything that went beyond his written findings. Which is to say, the quotes that so angered Hannity and his guests on Wednesday have been part of the public record for nearly five weeks.

So what happened? Television happened: Mueller stood before the cameras and summarized his findings. The affair was covered by every media outlet of consequence. It was such an event that the major cable news networks speculated about it for more than an hour before it happened. They couldn't talk about anything else, even though it hadn't even happened yet.

This very spectacle the special counsel, in his first public remarks on the investigation forced Hannity and many others to reckon with the Mueller team's actual findings. As opposed to the findings that Hannity had been announcing to his viewers in the intervening weeks:

• On May 2: "The witch hunt is done. Mueller has gone home. No collusion, no obstruction."
• On May 22: "We now have four separate investigations that have all cleared President Trump of the spurious charges leveled against him and his campaign. No collusion, fact. No obstruction, fact."
• On May 27: "Now, the truth has been laid bare for all to see. No collusion. No obstruction. No truth to the lies that have been peddled daily."

Folks who place trust in Hannity and there are many might have been confused, accordingly, upon hearing Mueller state, "If we had had the confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so." So Hannity had to reassure his fans: Mueller doesn't know what he's talking about.

Some other precincts of Fox News reported honestly on Mueller's appearance, including anchor Bret Baier and judicial analyst Andrew Napolitano. As Quinta Jurecic notes in the Atlantic, however, the news value of Wednesday lay not in the information which has been around for weeks but rather in the step taken by Mueller to highlight it.

Propagating misinformation, as it turns out, is a complicated business. To properly air the "no collusion" mantra, Hannity has to hype the Mueller probe's investigative thoroughness. To properly air the "no obstruction" mantra, Hannity must simultaneously aver that Mueller is "basically full of crap." It's one of the luxuries of Hannity's bubbled existence at Fox News that he will never be forced to choose between the two.

---

Mueller's report was welcomed because the evidence exonerated Trump...even if Mueller himself is unwilling to do so.

---

You need to read the second part of the report. It is a criminal referral not an exoneration.

---

It's an impeachment referral, which has a whole different (and effectively lower) standard.

quash said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Lol, you're out of your league here quash.

---

Yeah, my Baylor JD is no match for your OAN birdcage liner.

---

Well clearly it didn't do you any good. Any lawyer making an argument from authority (a well known fallacy)...doesn't know how to lawyer. Probably why your ass is working for a University instead of sitting on a general counsel.

You're just flat out wrong on this entire ordeal because you hate our President. Any other president (democrat) and you'd be screeching about FISA court violations and illegal predicates.

Tell me, who compromised you? The media? Your friends?

Doc Holliday said:

---

Lol, you're out of your league here quash.

---

You're right, but not in the way you think. "Think" here is a generous term.

Sam Lowry said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Great lefties... let's set another new precedent that subjective interpretations are equivalent to strong statements or facts which is what every single one of you is doing.

---

Do you even understand or care what kind of precedent you're advocating for?

The Republican view right now is seemingly that A) obstruction of an investigation by POTUS is not a crime "if he believes he did nothing wrong", as if every criminal ever doesn't proclaim "I didn't do it", B) since POTUS cannot be charged he also should not ever be investigated, and a little bit of C) any investigation of Trump by persons other than loyal Republicans (even though Mueller and Comey were Republicans...) is inherently invalid and possibly a crime against the State.

I swear, Trump supporters seem to spend a majority of their time and energy arguing for why laws shouldn't apply to Trump for various reasons. Sometimes I wish y'all would just cut through the bull and admit that what you really want is a King Trump that stands above the law.

---

That is not the Republican view. Some actions, like lying to investigators, are inherently wrong. Others, like firing an FBI director, are perfectly legitimate in themselves. If you want to build an obstruction case on the latter sort of conduct, that's when there needs to be some validity to the underlying allegations.

---

Firing Comey is one thing, asking him to lay off investigating someone and then firing him after he didn't comply is something else. Dangling pardons to buy the silence of a witness (which apparently was successful as pertains to Manafort, and less so with Flynn) is also potentially an obstructive act. Ordering minions to "take control" of an investigation that threatens his interests is also extremely questionable.

Essentially what y'all are aiming for is to legalize obstruction that is successful. With this brand new standard where you have to prove an underlying crime to charge obstruction (which DoJ is currently not adhering to in cases that don't involve POTUS btw), there is almost no downside to obstructing investigations as long as you make sure it can't find what it was looking for. Nevermind that there shouldn't even be a need to obstruct in the first place is one truly believed there isn't any wrongdoing to find...

---

There wasn't a need to obstruct in the first place. Trump had plenty of excellent reasons to fire Comey that had nothing to do with Russian boogeymen. Essentially what we are aiming for is to legalize "obstruction" that isn't obstruction (which is already legal in cases that don't involve POTUS).

---

You sure about that? Mueller thinks otherwise.

Mueller's report, Part 2, pg 76: "[E]vidence does indicate that a thorough FBI investigation would uncover facts about the campaign and the President personally that the President could have understood to be crimes or that would give rise to personal and political concerns."

---

It's impossible to say what Mueller thinks based on a sentence as vague and speculative as that one. Mueller's job wasn't to publish 200 pages of innuendo. If he thought the evidence supported an obstruction charge, he should have said so.

---

You can't make a man see something he refuses to believe exists, but it's pretty obvious what Mueller was saying with that sentence: Trump was scared of the investigation because he thought it might uncover crimes that implicated him.

And there's that neat little Catch-22 again. "If Trump did it Mueller would have charged him, but a sitting POTUS cannot be charged with a crime, therefore Trump is innocent because Mueller decided not to charge him", and on and on it goes in circles. Mueller's statement yesterday was basically him crying out for people to read the Report, but it continues to be painfully obvious that most Republicans aren't interested in reading it or facing the implications at all.

---

Let me help resolve the Catch-22 regarding Mueller's lack of options: It. Is. Not. True.

Mueller not only could, but would have recommended charges if the evidence had supported it.

---

Doc emphatically states otherwise: "1. Because a sitting President cannot be referred or determined to have have committed criminal acts by the DOJ or anyone in the Executive Branch. Trump is their boss DOJ is simply unable to proceed down any criminal determination regards POTUS.It's legally impossible and unconstitutional for them to do so."

Doc Holliday said:

---

quash said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Lol, you're out of your league here quash.

---

Yeah, my Baylor JD is no match for your OAN birdcage liner.

---

Well clearly it didn't do you any good. Any lawyer making an argument from authority (a well known fallacy)...doesn't know how to lawyer. Probably why your ass is working for a University instead of sitting on a general counsel.

You're just flat out wrong on this entire ordeal because you hate our President. Any other president (democrat) and you'd be screeching about FISA court violations and illegal predicates.

Tell me, who compromised you? The media? Your friends?

---

One, I didn't make an argument from authority.

Two, I don't work for Baylor or any other University. You really like to run without facts.

Three, I don't have a dog in the fight, my guy lost with no help from Russia. We're just a small third party.

Four, I will scream about FISA court violations when your promised IG report reveals such. If it does.

The FBI investigation into the Clinton Foundation (the disclosure of which to a reporter is what McCabe got in trouble for) was predicated from an oppo research book called Clinton Cash by longtime GOP hit-man Peter Schweizer. You ever notice how Hillary and Bill never cried about illegal investigations designed to take them down?

quash said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Great lefties... let's set another new precedent that subjective interpretations are equivalent to strong statements or facts which is what every single one of you is doing.

---

Do you even understand or care what kind of precedent you're advocating for?

The Republican view right now is seemingly that A) obstruction of an investigation by POTUS is not a crime "if he believes he did nothing wrong", as if every criminal ever doesn't proclaim "I didn't do it", B) since POTUS cannot be charged he also should not ever be investigated, and a little bit of C) any investigation of Trump by persons other than loyal Republicans (even though Mueller and Comey were Republicans...) is inherently invalid and possibly a crime against the State.

I swear, Trump supporters seem to spend a majority of their time and energy arguing for why laws shouldn't apply to Trump for various reasons. Sometimes I wish y'all would just cut through the bull and admit that what you really want is a King Trump that stands above the law.

---

That is not the Republican view. Some actions, like lying to investigators, are inherently wrong. Others, like firing an FBI director, are perfectly legitimate in themselves. If you want to build an obstruction case on the latter sort of conduct, that's when there needs to be some validity to the underlying allegations.

---

Firing Comey is one thing, asking him to lay off investigating someone and then firing him after he didn't comply is something else. Dangling pardons to buy the silence of a witness (which apparently was successful as pertains to Manafort, and less so with Flynn) is also potentially an obstructive act. Ordering minions to "take control" of an investigation that threatens his interests is also extremely questionable.

Essentially what y'all are aiming for is to legalize obstruction that is successful. With this brand new standard where you have to prove an underlying crime to charge obstruction (which DoJ is currently not adhering to in cases that don't involve POTUS btw), there is almost no downside to obstructing investigations as long as you make sure it can't find what it was looking for. Nevermind that there shouldn't even be a need to obstruct in the first place is one truly believed there isn't any wrongdoing to find...

---

There wasn't a need to obstruct in the first place. Trump had plenty of excellent reasons to fire Comey that had nothing to do with Russian boogeymen. Essentially what we are aiming for is to legalize "obstruction" that isn't obstruction (which is already legal in cases that don't involve POTUS).

---

You sure about that? Mueller thinks otherwise.

Mueller's report, Part 2, pg 76: "[E]vidence does indicate that a thorough FBI investigation would uncover facts about the campaign and the President personally that the President could have understood to be crimes or that would give rise to personal and political concerns."

---

It's impossible to say what Mueller thinks based on a sentence as vague and speculative as that one. Mueller's job wasn't to publish 200 pages of innuendo. If he thought the evidence supported an obstruction charge, he should have said so.

---

You can't make a man see something he refuses to believe exists, but it's pretty obvious what Mueller was saying with that sentence: Trump was scared of the investigation because he thought it might uncover crimes that implicated him.

And there's that neat little Catch-22 again. "If Trump did it Mueller would have charged him, but a sitting POTUS cannot be charged with a crime, therefore Trump is innocent because Mueller decided not to charge him", and on and on it goes in circles. Mueller's statement yesterday was basically him crying out for people to read the Report, but it continues to be painfully obvious that most Republicans aren't interested in reading it or facing the implications at all.

---

Let me help resolve the Catch-22 regarding Mueller's lack of options: It. Is. Not. True.

Mueller not only could, but would have recommended charges if the evidence had supported it.

---

Doc emphatically states otherwise: "1. Because a sitting President cannot be referred or determined to have have committed criminal acts by the DOJ or anyone in the Executive Branch. Trump is their boss DOJ is simply unable to proceed down any criminal determination regards POTUS.It's legally impossible and unconstitutional for them to do so."

---

Mueller emphatically agrees with me, at least when he's talking to Barr.

HuMcK said:

---

The FBI investigation into the Clinton Foundation (the disclosure of which to a reporter is what McCabe got in trouble for) was predicated from an oppo research book called Clinton Cash by longtime GOP hit-man Peter Schweizer. You ever notice how Hillary and Bill never cried about illegal investigations designed to take them down?

---

I don't think the idea of oppo research being illegal occurred to anyone until Trump did it. Wait, sorry...until Trump didn't do it. It's hard to keep track sometimes.

"It is a criminal referral"

If it were, it would, you know, actually say so.

quash said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Lol, you're out of your league here quash.

---

Yeah, my Baylor JD is no match for your OAN birdcage liner.

---

From the substance of your arguments, I suspect the 'Baylor' part of your JD is written in crayon and was originally called the Bay Lor College of Law and Loud Noises

Sam Lowry said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

The FBI investigation into the Clinton Foundation (the disclosure of which to a reporter is what McCabe got in trouble for) was predicated from an oppo research book called Clinton Cash by longtime GOP hit-man Peter Schweizer. You ever notice how Hillary and Bill never cried about illegal investigations designed to take them down?

---

I don't think the idea of oppo research being illegal occurred to anyone until Trump did it. Wait, sorry...until Trump didn't do it. It's hard to keep track sometimes.

---

I'm not even certain what you're trying to say there. My point was, initiating an investigation based on oppo-research allegations (i.e. a tip-off) is pretty normal and not at all improper, and that's why you don't see any Dems here whining about the investigation of the Clinton Foundation. All this "if it happened to a Dem" talk is nuts, it did happen to Hillary and the FBI leaked it's existence during a campaign (Andrew McCabe) while keeping quiet about Trump.

The allegation against Trump was always that his campaign's "oppo-research" came from the Russian government (Jr. was told his father had "the support of Russia and it's government" remember), partially because a central plank of his campaign was to take advantage of an ongoing Russian espionage info-op (while his business negotiated a lucrative deal to build in Moscow and his campaign actively concealed the now known Russian outreach efforts to it from US authorities).

HuMcK said:

---

The FBI investigation into the Clinton Foundation (the disclosure of which to a reporter is what McCabe got in trouble for) was predicated from an oppo research book called Clinton Cash by longtime GOP hit-man Peter Schweizer. You ever notice how Hillary and Bill never cried about illegal investigations designed to take them down?

---

Andy McCabe sent out an email condemning and looking for a leaker to over 100 FBI employees/agents. He asked to help identify who it was.

What he didn't tell them was that he was the leaker! He improperly leaked information to a reporter and then lied to both his boss, then-Director James Comey, and to FBI agents investigating his behavior. He was willing to frame someone for his corruption.

That's why they fired his ass.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/apr/13/andrew-mccabe-lied-was-source-wsj-leak-doj-says/

This is the same guy who discussed an insurance policy and played a massive role in the special counsel creation.

Shame on your for taking his side.

Dear Leftists: Here is What an Actual Impeachment Recommendation from a Special Investigator Might Look Like.

Barr says Mueller "could've reached a decision" on whether Trump obstructed justice

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/william-barr-interview-attorney-general-says-mueller-couldve-decided-whether-trump-obstructed-justice-exclusive/

Doc Holliday said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

The FBI investigation into the Clinton Foundation (the disclosure of which to a reporter is what McCabe got in trouble for) was predicated from an oppo research book called Clinton Cash by longtime GOP hit-man Peter Schweizer. You ever notice how Hillary and Bill never cried about illegal investigations designed to take them down?

---

Andy McCabe sent out an email condemning and looking for a leaker to over 100 FBI employees/agents. He asked to help identify who it was.

What he didn't tell them was that he was the leaker! He improperly leaked information to a reporter and then lied to both his boss, then-Director James Comey, and to FBI agents investigating his behavior. He was willing to frame someone for his corruption.

That's why they fired his ass.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/apr/13/andrew-mccabe-lied-was-source-wsj-leak-doj-says/

This is the same guy who discussed an insurance policy and played a massive role in the special counsel creation.

Shame on your for taking his side.

---

Fine, let's try again without McCabe:

The FBI investigation into the Clinton Foundation was predicated from a partisan oppo-research book called Clinton Cash, by longtime GOP hit-man Peter Schweizer. You ever notice how Hillary and Bill never cried about illegal investigations designed to take them down?

HuMcK said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

The FBI investigation into the Clinton Foundation (the disclosure of which to a reporter is what McCabe got in trouble for) was predicated from an oppo research book called Clinton Cash by longtime GOP hit-man Peter Schweizer. You ever notice how Hillary and Bill never cried about illegal investigations designed to take them down?

---

I don't think the idea of oppo research being illegal occurred to anyone until Trump did it. Wait, sorry...until Trump didn't do it. It's hard to keep track sometimes.

---

I'm not even certain what you're trying to say there. My point was, initiating an investigation based on oppo-research allegations (i.e. a tip-off) is pretty normal and not at all improper, and that's why you don't see any Dems here whining about the investigation of the Clinton Foundation. All this "if it happened to a Dem" talk is nuts, it did happen to Hillary and the FBI leaked it's existence during a campaign (Andrew McCabe) while keeping quiet about Trump.

The allegation against Trump was always that his campaign's "oppo-research" came from the Russian government (Jr. was told his father had "the support of Russia and it's government" remember), partially because a central plank of his campaign was to take advantage of an ongoing Russian espionage info-op (while his business negotiated a lucrative deal to build in Moscow and his campaign actively concealed the now known Russian outreach efforts to it from US authorities).

---

They didn't keep it quiet about Trump. It was leaked in mid-September of 2016, the perfect time to influence the election.

No one is saying it's improper to use oppo research. What's improper is to be less than forthcoming about its origins and to say it's verified when it isn't. That and the lack of a factual basis for the appointment of the special counsel, blatant bias on the part of FBI agents, improper unmasking of names, and countless unlawful leaks are just a few of the things that have Republicans complaining.

HuMcK said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

The FBI investigation into the Clinton Foundation (the disclosure of which to a reporter is what McCabe got in trouble for) was predicated from an oppo research book called Clinton Cash by longtime GOP hit-man Peter Schweizer. You ever notice how Hillary and Bill never cried about illegal investigations designed to take them down?

---

Andy McCabe sent out an email condemning and looking for a leaker to over 100 FBI employees/agents. He asked to help identify who it was.

What he didn't tell them was that he was the leaker! He improperly leaked information to a reporter and then lied to both his boss, then-Director James Comey, and to FBI agents investigating his behavior. He was willing to frame someone for his corruption.

That's why they fired his ass.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/apr/13/andrew-mccabe-lied-was-source-wsj-leak-doj-says/

This is the same guy who discussed an insurance policy and played a massive role in the special counsel creation.

Shame on your for taking his side.

---

Fine, let's try again without McCabe:

The FBI investigation into the Clinton Foundation was predicated from a partisan oppo-research book called Clinton Cash, by longtime GOP hit-man Peter Schweizer. You ever notice how Hillary and Bill never cried about illegal investigations designed to take them down?

---

Vastly different:

Did Donald Trump pay to help produce the Clinton Cash book?

No.

Were spies sent by our own and several other country's intel to create the appearance of Clinton-Cash claims?

No.

Were FBI agents texting each other about getting Clinton Cash through as an application for FISA warrants in order to spy on her Campaign? And were these agents showing signs of exterme bias ie: "insurance policy" "Donald J Trump will never become president...we'll stop it."?

No.


F.B.I. agents began investigating claims made against the Clinton Foundation in the book. Those claims were enough to warrant an investigation without spying warrants...only because they recorded conversations with two informants who were ALREADY involved in separate public corruption investigations. What they said matched up with what was in 'Clinton Cash'. Clinton Cash was not used as a predicate, the predicate was already initiated by the separate investigations and Clinton Cash was just more evidence.

William Barr interview: Attorney General says Mueller "could've reached a decision" on whether Trump obstructed justice

Weep!

That last sentence was just too ironic to leave alone, so I took it and just changed some nouns:

Quote:

---

What [Papadopolous] said [to Downer] matched up with what was in [the Steele Dossier]. [The Dossier] was not used as a predicate, the predicate was already initiated by the separate investigations and [the Dossier] was just more evidence.

---

There, now you're up to speed with the rest of us.

Doc Holliday said:

---

Dear Leftists: Here is What an Actual Impeachment Recommendation from a Special Investigator Might Look Like.

---

That's the difference between an Independent Prosecutor and a Special Prosecutor. SP is bound by DoJ policy to a different degree.

Sam Lowry said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

The FBI investigation into the Clinton Foundation (the disclosure of which to a reporter is what McCabe got in trouble for) was predicated from an oppo research book called Clinton Cash by longtime GOP hit-man Peter Schweizer. You ever notice how Hillary and Bill never cried about illegal investigations designed to take them down?

---

I don't think the idea of oppo research being illegal occurred to anyone until Trump did it. Wait, sorry...until Trump didn't do it. It's hard to keep track sometimes.

---

I'm not even certain what you're trying to say there. My point was, initiating an investigation based on oppo-research allegations (i.e. a tip-off) is pretty normal and not at all improper, and that's why you don't see any Dems here whining about the investigation of the Clinton Foundation. All this "if it happened to a Dem" talk is nuts, it did happen to Hillary and the FBI leaked it's existence during a campaign (Andrew McCabe) while keeping quiet about Trump.

The allegation against Trump was always that his campaign's "oppo-research" came from the Russian government (Jr. was told his father had "the support of Russia and it's government" remember), partially because a central plank of his campaign was to take advantage of an ongoing Russian espionage info-op (while his business negotiated a lucrative deal to build in Moscow and his campaign actively concealed the now known Russian outreach efforts to it from US authorities).

---

They didn't keep it quiet about Trump. It was leaked in mid-September of 2016, the perfect time to influence the election.

No one is saying it's improper to use oppo research. What's improper is to be less than forthcoming about its origins and to say it's verified when it isn't. That and the lack of a factual basis for the appointment of the special counsel, blatant bias on the part of FBI agents, improper unmasking of names, and countless unlawful leaks are just a few of the things that have Republicans complaining.

---

October surprises are more nearly perfect than the September flavor.

quash said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

The FBI investigation into the Clinton Foundation (the disclosure of which to a reporter is what McCabe got in trouble for) was predicated from an oppo research book called Clinton Cash by longtime GOP hit-man Peter Schweizer. You ever notice how Hillary and Bill never cried about illegal investigations designed to take them down?

---

I don't think the idea of oppo research being illegal occurred to anyone until Trump did it. Wait, sorry...until Trump didn't do it. It's hard to keep track sometimes.

---

I'm not even certain what you're trying to say there. My point was, initiating an investigation based on oppo-research allegations (i.e. a tip-off) is pretty normal and not at all improper, and that's why you don't see any Dems here whining about the investigation of the Clinton Foundation. All this "if it happened to a Dem" talk is nuts, it did happen to Hillary and the FBI leaked it's existence during a campaign (Andrew McCabe) while keeping quiet about Trump.

The allegation against Trump was always that his campaign's "oppo-research" came from the Russian government (Jr. was told his father had "the support of Russia and it's government" remember), partially because a central plank of his campaign was to take advantage of an ongoing Russian espionage info-op (while his business negotiated a lucrative deal to build in Moscow and his campaign actively concealed the now known Russian outreach efforts to it from US authorities).

---

They didn't keep it quiet about Trump. It was leaked in mid-September of 2016, the perfect time to influence the election.

No one is saying it's improper to use oppo research. What's improper is to be less than forthcoming about its origins and to say it's verified when it isn't. That and the lack of a factual basis for the appointment of the special counsel, blatant bias on the part of FBI agents, improper unmasking of names, and countless unlawful leaks are just a few of the things that have Republicans complaining.

---

October surprises are more nearly perfect than the September flavor.

---

And sometimes they blow up in the face of people who planned them,

quash said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Dear Leftists: Here is What an Actual Impeachment Recommendation from a Special Investigator Might Look Like.

---

That's the difference between an Independent Prosecutor and a Special Prosecutor. SP is bound by DoJ policy to a different degree.

---

Do you have an opinion on impeachment?

Waco1947 said:

---

quash said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Dear Leftists: Here is What an Actual Impeachment Recommendation from a Special Investigator Might Look Like.

---

That's the difference between an Independent Prosecutor and a Special Prosecutor. SP is bound by DoJ policy to a different degree.

---

Do you have an opinion on impeachment?

---

As I said, not gonna happen.

quash said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

quash said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Dear Leftists: Here is What an Actual Impeachment Recommendation from a Special Investigator Might Look Like.

---

That's the difference between an Independent Prosecutor and a Special Prosecutor. SP is bound by DoJ policy to a different degree.

---

Do you have an opinion on impeachment?

---

As I said, not gonna happen.

---

I did not frame my question right.
1. Could the House begin impeachment proceedings on the basis of the Mueller Report as a matter of protecting democratic values?
2. Apart from the value question should the Dems punt in impeachment as a matter of politics?

Waco1947 said:

---

quash said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

quash said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Dear Leftists: Here is What an Actual Impeachment Recommendation from a Special Investigator Might Look Like.

---

That's the difference between an Independent Prosecutor and a Special Prosecutor. SP is bound by DoJ policy to a different degree.

---

Do you have an opinion on impeachment?

---

As I said, not gonna happen.

---

I did not frame my question right.
1. Could the House begin impeachment proceedings on the basis of the Mueller Report as a matter of protecting democratic values?
2. Apart from the value question should the Dems punt in impeachment as a matter of politics?

---

If Dems push for impeachment...Trump's numbers skyrocket.

In the end, Robert Mueller turns out just to be just another empty suit. Just another overpaid bureaucrat making no difference whatsoever siphoning away money from the taxpayers. He very easily could have ended this with his press conference but instead, chose to rip a loud smelly fart and walk away. Cannot say I'm surprised.