RightNation.US
News (Home) | Righters' Blog | Hollywood Halfwits | Our Store | New User Intro | Link to us | Support Us

RightNation.US: Mueller's Testimony And Investigation Are Over -- THIS Is The - RightNation.US

Jump to content

Mueller's Testimony And Investigation Are Over -- THIS Is The Serious Threat We Now Face Rate Topic: -----

#1 User is offline   Liz 

  • ***-----------***
  • Group: Moderator
  • Posts: 51,335
  • Joined: 28-February 03

  Posted 28 July 2019 - 11:18 AM

Mueller's Testimony And Investigation Are Over -- THIS Is The Serious Threat We Now Face

Fox News
By Mark Penn
27 July 2019

Excerpt:

Robert Mueller’s testimony to Congress, by any reasonable standard, should have been the swan song of the impeachment movement.

To state the obvious, there is no evidence that President Trump or any other American probed by the Mueller investigation conspired with the Russian government to influence the 2016 presidential election.

At worst, both campaigns were willing to take research on their opponents fed by Russians. On this score, it appears the Clinton campaign was far more successful, though the use of disguised campaign funds for this purpose has not yet been probed.

I rejected the "collusion" theory early on based on two principal facts: 1) Any fair reading of the Steele dossier reveals it is ridiculous on its face, and 2) The texts from Lisa Page and Peter Strzok conclusively showed bias at work behind the scenes.

On top of these facts came the revelations that the dossier was all paid for by the Democratic National Committee and the Clinton campaign, and that it was all being fed to the FBI through the wife of a senior official who was also on the payroll of that same effort to discredit Trump.

For two years, I have had to qualify my beliefs with something like "subject to the findings of the Mueller report." Well, the Mueller report found nothing. There was no secret witness, no unearthed secret communications, no secret plot coordinated through hidden Trump Tower servers, no trips to Prague, no quid pro quos to remove sanctions.

So why does a third or more of the public still believe in Russia collusion? Because partisanship by our politicians and some in the media knows no bounds, and to partisans, facts and evidence are simply inconvenient bumps on a road to power.

That brings us back to the Mueller testimony and the Mueller Andrew Weissmann investigation. Mueller turned out to be the classic emperor-has-no-clothes witness. He once again said that he did not indict Trump because of the Justice Department policy against indicting a president only to once again retract the statement hours later.

He may be old, but he surely understood he was playing and retracting that card — he would have practiced that question 10 times as it was the only anti-Trump card remaining in his dwindling hand. He ignored that Attorney General William Barr, former Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and career Justice Department lawyers all determined that the facts he listed didn’t constitute criminal obstruction of justice.

The president was, as far as the Justice Department was concerned, cleared on obstruction of justice.

Mueller’s weak grasp of the facts, combined with his deputy Weissmann's documented history of prosecutorial abuse, strongly suggests Weissmann ran the investigation, not Mueller. It also indicates that Weissmann enjoyed free rein to go after not just the facts, but the people associated with the president.

*snip*

Full Commentary
0

#2 User is offline   That_Guy 

  • <no title>
  • Group: +Gold Community Supporter
  • Posts: 20,426
  • Joined: 02-September 06

Posted 28 July 2019 - 11:41 AM

View PostLiz, on 28 July 2019 - 11:18 AM, said:

Mueller's Testimony And Investigation Are Over -- THIS Is The Serious Threat We Now Face

Fox News
By Mark Penn
27 July 2019

Excerpt:

Robert Mueller’s testimony to Congress, by any reasonable standard, should have been the swan song of the impeachment movement.

To state the obvious, there is no evidence that President Trump or any other American probed by the Mueller investigation conspired with the Russian government to influence the 2016 presidential election.


Really, Mark Penn:

"Separately, on August 2, 2016, Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort met in New York City with his long-time business associate Konstantin Kilimnik, who the FBI assesses to have ties to Russian intelligence. Kilimnik requested the meeting to deliver in person a peace plan for Ukraine that Manafort acknowledged to the Special Counsel's Office was a backdoor way for Russia to control part of eastern Ukraine; both men believed the plan would require candidate Trump's assent to succeed (were he to be elected President). They also discussed the status of the Trump Campaign and Manafort's strategy for winning Democratic votes in Midwestern states. Months before that meeting, Manafort had caused internal polling data to be shared with Kilimnik, and the sharing continued for some period of time after their August meeting."
0

#3 User is offline   Rock N' Roll Right Winger 

  • Pissing off all of the right people
  • Group: Silver
  • Posts: 31,003
  • Joined: 14-October 03

Posted 28 July 2019 - 12:23 PM

View PostThat_Guy, on 28 July 2019 - 11:41 AM, said:

Really, Mark Penn:

"Separately, on August 2, 2016, Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort met in New York City with his long-time business associate Konstantin Kilimnik, who the FBI assesses to have ties to Russian intelligence. Kilimnik requested the meeting to deliver in person a peace plan for Ukraine that Manafort acknowledged to the Special Counsel's Office was a backdoor way for Russia to control part of eastern Ukraine; both men believed the plan would require candidate Trump's assent to succeed (were he to be elected President). They also discussed the status of the Trump Campaign and Manafort's strategy for winning Democratic votes in Midwestern states. Months before that meeting, Manafort had caused internal polling data to be shared with Kilimnik, and the sharing continued for some period of time after their August meeting."

Really, all a big fat nothingburger. :biglaugh:
0

#4 User is online   zurg 

  • <no title>
  • Group: +Copper Community Supporter
  • Posts: 28,299
  • Joined: 19-October 09

Posted 28 July 2019 - 12:24 PM

What are you even trying to say, TG? What bearing does what you posted have on impeachment? Are you an idiot on purpose?
0

#5 User is online   erp 

  • Undead Undead Undead
  • Group: Silver
  • Posts: 37,622
  • Joined: 29-November 03

Posted 28 July 2019 - 12:46 PM

View Postzurg, on 28 July 2019 - 12:24 PM, said:

What are you even trying to say, TG? What bearing does what you posted have on impeachment? Are you an idiot on purpose?

It is on purpose, but yet, unintentional. ;)
0

#6 User is offline   Taggart Transcontinental 

  • <no title>
  • View gallery
  • Group: +Gold Community Supporter
  • Posts: 27,156
  • Joined: 22-October 03

Posted 28 July 2019 - 01:03 PM

Quote

To state the obvious, there is no evidence that President Trump or any other American probed by the Mueller investigation conspired with the Russian government to influence the 2016 presidential election.
At worst, both campaigns were willing to take research on their opponents fed by Russians. On this score, it appears the Clinton campaign was far more successful, though the use of disguised campaign funds for this purpose has not yet been probed.


This is absolutely, positively NOT an accurate statement at all. Meuller expressed they did not investigate a thing Clinton. Inferring that the Clinton Campaign did not conspire with the russians is a broad assumption given the fact that Meuller was asked about anyone in the Trump campaign which is as far as his investigation got. They didn't bother to look into a thing Clinton or Obama for that matter.



0

#7 User is offline   LeansToTheRight 

  • Dr. Elson Floyd. RIP
  • Group: Bronze
  • Posts: 2,280
  • Joined: 25-October 03

Posted 28 July 2019 - 01:06 PM

View PostThat_Guy, on 28 July 2019 - 11:41 AM, said:

Really, Mark Penn:

"Separately, on August 2, 2016, Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort met in New York City with his long-time business associate Konstantin Kilimnik, who the FBI assesses to have ties to Russian intelligence. Kilimnik requested the meeting to deliver in person a peace plan for Ukraine that Manafort acknowledged to the Special Counsel's Office was a backdoor way for Russia to control part of eastern Ukraine; both men believed the plan would require candidate Trump's assent to succeed (were he to be elected President). They also discussed the status of the Trump Campaign and Manafort's strategy for winning Democratic votes in Midwestern states. Months before that meeting, Manafort had caused internal polling data to be shared with Kilimnik, and the sharing continued for some period of time after their August meeting."


Why did Mueller not indict Trump? At the end of the day, all of the “what about this?” and “What about that?” that you want to try to cling to don’t amount to anything for one very simple reason: The Mueller Investigation didn’t find enough to indict on either obstruction or collusion. We have the Mueller Report, we have the Mueller Press Conference, and we have the Mueller Testimony Before Congress, and it all boils down to the same thing: not enough evidence to even bring an indictment.

Now maybe you know more than the Mueller Team, maybe you had better access to all the information than the Mueller Team. But Mueller was the Special Council, and not you. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
0

#8 User is offline   That_Guy 

  • <no title>
  • Group: +Gold Community Supporter
  • Posts: 20,426
  • Joined: 02-September 06

Posted 28 July 2019 - 01:22 PM

View PostLeansToTheRight, on 28 July 2019 - 01:06 PM, said:

Why did Mueller not indict Trump?

Quote

The Mueller Investigation didn’t find enough to indict on either obstruction or collusion.


"First, a traditional prosecution or declination decision entails a binary determination to initiate or decline a prosecution, but we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment.. The Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) has issued an opinion finding that the indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would impermissibly undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions in violation of the constitutional separation of powers. Given the role of the Special Counsel as an attorney in the Department of Justice and the framework of the Special Counsel regulations, see 28 U.S.C. 515; 28 C.F.R. this Office accepted legal conclusion for the purpose of exercising prosecutorial jurisdiction."
0

#9 User is offline   Taggart Transcontinental 

  • <no title>
  • View gallery
  • Group: +Gold Community Supporter
  • Posts: 27,156
  • Joined: 22-October 03

Posted 28 July 2019 - 01:48 PM

View PostThat_Guy, on 28 July 2019 - 01:22 PM, said:

"First, a traditional prosecution or declination decision entails a binary determination to initiate or decline a prosecution, but we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment.. The Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) has issued an opinion finding that the indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would impermissibly undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions in violation of the constitutional separation of powers. Given the role of the Special Counsel as an attorney in the Department of Justice and the framework of the Special Counsel regulations, see 28 U.S.C. 515; 28 C.F.R. this Office accepted legal conclusion for the purpose of exercising prosecutorial jurisdiction."


They determined NOT to make a binary decision? Then they chose not to prosecute. Binary or Trinary, action or no action, they are all choices. What the author of this document did was attempted to make an indication that they would like to prosecute but they had not evidence on which to base a prosecution on and therefore they left it floating out there like smelly poo so floater chum like yourself can grasp onto it. Here's a hint for you. If a PROSECUTOR chooses NOT TO PROSECUTE, then they didn't feel they could take the case to a court and win. That means the accused is INNOCENT of all charges, claims or allegations, until proven guilty in a court of law. If no court of law, then even feeble minds like yourself should grasp that they are innocent.

Here's a question for you, is OJ innocent of all charges in the eye's of the court with regards to the murder? If so then he's innocent of the murder regardless.

0

#10 User is offline   mjperry51 

  • My Brain Hurts!!
  • Group: Silver
  • Posts: 12,120
  • Joined: 13-September 03

Posted 28 July 2019 - 02:00 PM

View PostThat_Guy, on 28 July 2019 - 01:22 PM, said:

"First, a traditional prosecution or declination decision entails a binary determination to initiate or decline a prosecution, but we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment.. The Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) has issued an opinion finding that the indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would impermissibly undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions in violation of the constitutional separation of powers. Given the role of the Special Counsel as an attorney in the Department of Justice and the framework of the Special Counsel regulations, see 28 U.S.C. 515; 28 C.F.R. this Office accepted legal conclusion for the purpose of exercising prosecutorial jurisdiction."


One of a multitude. . .

Quote

How Barr Found No Obstruction by Trump When Mueller Wouldn't
By Chris Strohm and Shannon Pettypiece

bloomberg.com

Democrats look at Special Counsel Robert Mueller's conclusion that he couldn't "exonerate" Donald Trump on obstruction of justice charges as vindication for their continued probes of the president.

Republicans pointed to other sentences in Attorney General William Barr's letter on Mueller's report to claim vindication of their own, noting Barr found there wasn't enough evidence to form an obstruction case.

How can one report lead to two such different conclusions? The simple answer: Barr did something no one expected him to do, or at least not so quickly, and that was pass judgment on some of Mueller's findings in a letter sent to Congress on Sunday.

And he did so in the space of less than 48 hours after announcing he'd received Mueller's report on Friday.

Now Democrats are crying foul, with the head of the House Judiciary Committee, Jerrold Nadler, calling for Barr to come before his committee to explain himself. Nadler and others say Congress has the prerogative to determine if the president broke the law on obstruction, not the attorney general -- a Republican appointed by Trump.

Nadler made clear he plans to pursue his own probe into obstruction, something that could become part of a debate among Democrats about whether to impeach the president.

Barr had promised a quick readout on the "principal conclusions" of Mueller's work after the special counsel turned in his final report on Friday. Official Washington expected a terse recitation of the top-line facts, with a fuller explanation down the road. Most significantly, Barr reported that Mueller found no evidence of Trump collusion with Russia.

But Mueller was far less decisive on obstruction -- citing "difficult issues" of fact and law -- but noting that his report "does not exonerate" the president.

So Barr stepped in.

He inserted his own judgment -- and that of Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein -- that charging Trump with obstructing justice wasn't warranted, even aside from standing Justice Department guidance that a sitting president can't be prosecuted.

Barr said simply that the evidence didn't rise to the level that Trump broke the law. He said in his summary that most of Trump's actions took place in public view or have been the subject of public reporting.Barr also said that because there was no criminal activity related to collusion, it would be difficult to prove Trump had corrupt intent in his actions toward the investigation.
<snip>

Bottom line -- the Mueller Report is not the final say -- the DOJ is. Additionally it is not the responsibility or purview of a prosecutor to even attempt exoneration of the target of an investigation. I'll stipulate Trumps claims of exoneration may be erroneous as a matter of law. However the pragmatic outcome of no indictment is a de facto exoneration.

Bar and Rosenstein agreed there was not enough evidence of obstruction to indict; the OLC position notwithstanding. . .
0

#11 User is online   erp 

  • Undead Undead Undead
  • Group: Silver
  • Posts: 37,622
  • Joined: 29-November 03

Posted 28 July 2019 - 02:26 PM

View PostThat_Guy, on 28 July 2019 - 01:22 PM, said:

"First, a traditional prosecution or declination decision entails a binary determination to initiate or decline a prosecution, but we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment.. The Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) has issued an opinion finding that the indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would impermissibly undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions in violation of the constitutional separation of powers. Given the role of the Special Counsel as an attorney in the Department of Justice and the framework of the Special Counsel regulations, see 28 U.S.C. 515; 28 C.F.R. this Office accepted legal conclusion for the purpose of exercising prosecutorial jurisdiction."

Holy <censored>! It’s Trayvon Martin all over again!!


You were wrong then, and you are wrong now. Good news is, your record of 100% is still intact. At least you can be proud of that.
0

#12 User is offline   Ticked@TinselTown 

  • Unimpressed with Celebutards since Always
  • View blog
  • Group: Platinum Community Supporter
  • Posts: 28,502
  • Joined: 01-April 03

Posted 28 July 2019 - 03:12 PM

View PostThat_Guy, on 28 July 2019 - 11:41 AM, said:

Really, Mark Penn:

"Separately, on August 2, 2016, Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort met in New York City with his long-time business associate Konstantin Kilimnik, who the FBI assesses to have ties to Russian intelligence. Kilimnik requested the meeting to deliver in person a peace plan for Ukraine that Manafort acknowledged to the Special Counsel's Office was a backdoor way for Russia to control part of eastern Ukraine; both men believed the plan would require candidate Trump's assent to succeed (were he to be elected President). They also discussed the status of the Trump Campaign and Manafort's strategy for winning Democratic votes in Midwestern states. Months before that meeting, Manafort had caused internal polling data to be shared with Kilimnik, and the sharing continued for some period of time after their August meeting."


This is when you should start blowing that whistle before you freeze to death on your raft, Jack.

http://earnthis.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/rose-and-jack-on-the-raft.jpg

This post has been edited by Ticked@TinselTown: 28 July 2019 - 03:13 PM

0

#13 User is offline   NH Populist 

  • <no title>
  • Group: +Bronze Community Supporter
  • Posts: 1,432
  • Joined: 30-April 18

Posted 28 July 2019 - 05:48 PM

Why does T_G YELL so much?!! :wtf2:
0

#14 User is offline   LeansToTheRight 

  • Dr. Elson Floyd. RIP
  • Group: Bronze
  • Posts: 2,280
  • Joined: 25-October 03

Posted 28 July 2019 - 05:49 PM

View PostThat_Guy, on 28 July 2019 - 01:22 PM, said:

"First, a traditional prosecution or declination decision entails a binary determination to initiate or decline a prosecution, but we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment.. The Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) has issued an opinion finding that the indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would impermissibly undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions in violation of the constitutional separation of powers. Given the role of the Special Counsel as an attorney in the Department of Justice and the framework of the Special Counsel regulations, see 28 U.S.C. 515; 28 C.F.R. this Office accepted legal conclusion for the purpose of exercising prosecutorial jurisdiction."


Wrong.

The OLC wasn’t the reason. Mueller clarified that point in his testimony to Congress.

They didn’t reach a determination on whether the President committed a crime. Now with everything that they had access to, why is that? It’s because they didn’t have enough evidence.

View PostNH Populist, on 28 July 2019 - 05:48 PM, said:

Why does T_G YELL so much?!! :wtf2:

Because the truth is not on his side.
0

#15 User is offline   Squirrel 

  • <no title>
  • Group: +Copper Community Supporter
  • Posts: 1,056
  • Joined: 24-September 18

Posted 28 July 2019 - 07:57 PM

View PostThat_Guy, on 28 July 2019 - 11:41 AM, said:

Really, Mark Penn:

"Separately, on August 2, 2016, Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort met in New York City with his long-time business associate Konstantin Kilimnik, who the FBI assesses to have ties to Russian intelligence. Kilimnik requested the meeting to deliver in person a peace plan for Ukraine that Manafort acknowledged to the Special Counsel's Office was a backdoor way for Russia to control part of eastern Ukraine; both men believed the plan would require candidate Trump's assent to succeed (were he to be elected President). They also discussed the status of the Trump Campaign and Manafort's strategy for winning Democratic votes in Midwestern states. Months before that meeting, Manafort had caused internal polling data to be shared with Kilimnik, and the sharing continued for some period of time after their August meeting."

Great so what’s your next die on the hill stand? First it was wait on the report, then it was wait until
The report is released, then just wait until murller testifies. So far a multimillion dollar nothing sandwich. But by all means TG what are we waiting on now and what is this nothing going to cost on top of the democrats not actually doing thier elected jobs still while chasing it. What is your next when this come out it’s proof? We’ve seen every other one fizzle but what’s the smoking gun now and as I said how much will the bill be? Will the democrats get any actual work done in the mean time or do thier elected job?

This post has been edited by Squirrel: 28 July 2019 - 08:24 PM

0

#16 User is offline   Joe the Pagan 

  • I'm a Whovian not a Dweeb
  • View blog
  • Group: Platinum Community Supporter
  • Posts: 6,851
  • Joined: 02-November 03

Posted 28 July 2019 - 09:13 PM

View PostNH Populist, on 28 July 2019 - 05:48 PM, said:

Why does T_G YELL so much?!! :wtf2:


Quote

If the facts are against you, argue the law. If the law is against you, argue the facts. If the law and the facts are against you, pound the table and YELL like hell”

― Carl Sandburg

0

#17 User is online   Noclevermoniker 

  • Wire Dachsies Matter
  • Group: +Silver Community Supporter
  • Posts: 17,103
  • Joined: 13-November 03

Posted 29 July 2019 - 04:16 PM

View PostJoe the Pagan, on 28 July 2019 - 09:13 PM, said:



"Turn those machines back on! Turn those machines back on.....!!!"
0

#18 User is online   The Punisher 

  • <no title>
  • Group: Community-Supported
  • Posts: 28
  • Joined: 14-July 07

Posted 29 July 2019 - 05:06 PM

View PostNoclevermoniker, on 29 July 2019 - 04:16 PM, said:

"Turn those machines back on! Turn those machines back on.....!!!"


I got it. Nice one. Was that Randolph or Mortimer, i get them confused.
0

#19 User is offline   MontyPython 

  • Pull My Finger.....
  • View gallery
  • Group: Gold
  • Posts: 57,799
  • Joined: 28-February 03

Posted 29 July 2019 - 05:10 PM

https://i.redd.it/t311q4kueqm01.jpg
0

#20 User is online   SARGE 

  • <no title>
  • Group: Bronze
  • Posts: 10,913
  • Joined: 26-June 03

Posted 29 July 2019 - 05:16 PM

View PostThe Punisher, on 29 July 2019 - 05:06 PM, said:

I got it. Nice one. Was that Randolph or Mortimer, i get them confused.


Mortimer (Don Ameche).
0

Share this topic:


  • 2 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users