The Witch Hunt - Liberals Great Trump/Russia Collusion Conspiracy Theory - is almost done for - and there is no 'there' there. Total Fabrication of the Libs.

However, at the least they - The Devious Libs - will have succeeded in damaging Trump through Perception - like 60% of American's now believe there was collusion - that he'll lose the 2020 Election.

So even though I don't like Trump much, the dirty devious, underhanded, unethical, dishonest sh*t of the Libs that they always pull - including lawsuits/investigations/subpoenas, etc. ruining people's lives - makes me despise them much more. Despicable treatment of a sitting President by the Libs and Lib Media.

***********

Robert Mueller’s Plan

Special Counsel Mueller is building a report, not a case.

[www.nationalreview.com]

Right after Special Counsel Robert Mueller racked up yet another guilty plea to a false-statements charge on Thursday, a friend asked me, “Doesn’t this destroy Michael Cohen’s credibility as a witness?”

Easier to destroy Satan’s conscience, I thought. Cohen would have to have some credibility before it could be destroyed, and how much could reside in a self-described “fixer” who openly compared himself to Tom Hagen, the lawyer-gangster in The Godfather? (I’ll stipulate that he has a law degree, but Cohen has always struck me as the Fredo of Trump World.)

Nevertheless, the flaw in my friend’s question was not the assumption that Cohen had some smidgeon of value as a witness until it was extirpated by his plea of guilty to lying to Congress (after he had already, in August, pled guilty lying to a financial institution, among other fraudulence). The real flaw was the assumption that Special Counsel Mueller is lining up witnesses and building a criminal case, as prosecutors do.

He is not.

No prosecutor builds a case the way Mueller is going about it. What prosecutor says, “Here’s our witness line-up: Michael Flynn, George Papadopoulos, Alex van der Zwaan, Rick Gates, Paul Manafort, Michael Cohen. And what is it that they have in common, ladies and gentlemen of the jury? Bingo! They’re all convicted liars.”?

For a prosecutor, like any trial lawyer, what the jury thinks is at least as important as what the law says. If the most memorable thing the jury takes into the deliberation room is that no one should believe a word your witnesses say, you are not going to convict the lowliest grifter, much less the president of the United States of America.

As a prosecutor, you build a case by having your cooperating accomplice witnesses plead guilty to the big scheme you are trying to pin on the main culprit. After all, what makes these witnesses accomplices, literally, is that they were participants in the main culprit’s crime. That’s the scheme you’re trying to prove. So, on guilty-plea day, the cooperator comes into court and admits guilt to the same conspiracy on which you are trying to nail the lead defendant.

That gets you 90 percent of the way home. “Yes, I am guilty of the conspiracy charged in Count One. I was a member of the drug cartel. A was the boss. B and C were the distributors. D organized the couriers and kept an arsenal to protect the drugs and the money, and to make sure we got paid. My job was to keep the books and supervise the money-laundering operation.”

This kind of guilty plea signals to the world, including to all the other suspects, that the accomplice is ready to testify that the criminal scheme existed — it is not a figment of the prosecutor’s fevered imagination. The accomplice is ready to describe what he did and what everybody else did. Virtually every appellate opinion reviewing conspiracy convictions notes the principle that once a conspiracy is shown to exist, only slight evidence is needed to tie a conspirator to it.

In short, you build a case by first establishing the foundational criminal offense. Juries do not convict people because they like or trust the prosecution’s witnesses. They convict because they are persuaded that justice demands redress for a real crime.

Note that word: crime. There are many wrongs that are not crimes, activities that are immoral, mendacious, unseemly. If we are talking about cosmic justice, all these wrongs should be made right. But prosecutors do not operate in a cosmic-justice system. They are in the criminal-justice system. The only wrongs they are authorized to address — the only wrongs it is appropriate for them to address — are crimes.

This is why, from the beginning of the Trump-Russia investigation, and certainly since Mueller’s appointment on May 17, 2017, we have stressed that the probe is a counterintelligence investigation, not a criminal investigation. The idea was not to dizzy you with Justice Department esoterica. The point is that we don’t want prosecutors involved until it has been established that a crime was probably committed, warranting use of their awesome, intimidating investigative powers. Our main interest is in the crime we authorize prosecutors to investigate; we are not looking to have prosecutors manufacture crimes through the process of investigating — even if we agree that people should not be permitted to lie to investigators with impunity.

With respect to the president and “collusion,” Mueller does not have a crime he is investigating. He is investigating in hopes of finding a crime, which is a day-and-night different thing.

The lack of a crime means the “accomplices” are not really accomplices. To take a couple of stark examples, collusion pours off every page of the narrative statements Mueller submitted to the courts in the cases of Papadopoulos and Cohen. They consult with Russian operatives, plan meetings for themselves and Trump with Russian officials, and — in Papadopoulos’s case — discuss the possibility of obtaining campaign dirt against Hillary Clinton from Russians. Yet, though these activities are the laser focus of his investigation, Mueller did not charge them as crimes because they are not crimes. Papadopoulos, Cohen, and the rest got jammed up, not for what they did, but for lying about what they did.

That brings us to the “where there’s smoke, there must be fire” talking-point Mueller fans have been trying out: If all these people are lying to cover something up, that something must involve some egregious criminality. That’s ridiculous. We know from our own daily lives that crimes account for only a very small percentage of the things people lie about. Indeed, throughout the 1990s, Democrats insisted that prosecutors should leave Bill Clinton alone because everybody lies about sex. People lie about things that they are embarrassed or ashamed about.

Politics is a seamy business. Pols want to think of themselves as public servants, but they spend lots of time with their hands out, either pleading for money or collecting information that might compromise an opponent. Successful politics requires horse-trading and compromise, so pols are forever explaining how they could actually be against something they voted for. A lot of this is embarrassing stuff. Consequently, when people in and around politics get caught practicing politics, they often lie about what they’ve done.

Politics is not a crime, of course. Consequently, if you criminalize politics — if you turn a prosecutor loose to investigate political campaign activities — you are apt to find unsavory conduct that is not criminal but that some people will lie about.

Mueller is turning such lies into guilty pleas, for three reasons.

First, he is not going to indict the president, which would precipitate a trial at some point. The convicted liars are not going to be jury-trial witnesses, so Mueller is not concerned about their lack of credibility. The report will detail disturbing — and thus politically damaging — connections between Trump associates and Kremlin cronies. But there will be no collusion crime, and thus no charges and no need for witnesses.

Second, with the media as his biggest cheerleader (other than Jeff Flake), the false-statements pleas create the illusion of a collusion crime, and thus appear to vindicate Mueller’s sprawling investigation. As I’ve previously explained, the game works this way: The media reports that Mueller is investigating Trump–Russia collusion and that dozens of people have been charged or convicted; but the media omits that no one has been charged, much less convicted, of any crime involving collusion between Trump and Russia. The great mass of people who do not follow the news closely come away thinking a Trump–Russia collusion crime is an established fact; by now, Mueller must be tightening the noose around Trump because he’s already rolled up a bunch of the apparent accomplices.

Third, defendants convicted of making false statements are very useful because Mueller is writing a report, not preparing for a jury trial. Convicted liars never get cross-examined in a report. Nor do they give the bumpy, inconsistent testimony you hear in a courtroom. Instead, their version of events is outlined by a skilled prosecutor, who writes well and knows how to make their stories sing in perfect harmony. They will sound far better in the report than they would on the witness stand. We’ve already gotten a taste of this in the offense narratives Mueller has incorporated in each guilty plea. Read the criminal information in Cohen’s case and ask yourself whether Mr. Fixer could have recited matters with such clarity.

Here, moreover, there is a bonus for the special prosecutor. He knows that the legitimacy of his investigation is under attack, allegedly driven by politics rather than evidence of crime. But the convictions he has amassed, even if they are only for false statements or are otherwise unrelated to the Trump-Russia rationale for the investigation, prove that many people Trump brought into his campaign were corruptible and of low character. Mueller, the career Justice Department and FBI man, will deftly use this fact to argue that suspicions about these people, and hence the investigation, were fully justified even if — thankfully — there was no prosecutable Trump–Russia conspiracy.

Trump’s Republican and conservative critics will cheer, figuring the president and his rogues’ gallery had it coming. Democrats will cheer, knowing this would never happen to Democrats.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/13/2018 09:03PM by Jennifer.

Then you have nothing to worry about and can stop publishing stupid articles like this because at the end of his investigation nothing will happen to your god emperor because he did nothing wrong. ... Yep he's definitely got "nothing." It's so obvious he has nothing because he hasn't secured guilty pleas, convictions or gotten any cooperation right ?

You Trump supporters are good for a laugh!

Mueller has nothing Ha Ha HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

Order Up!! One nothing burger
with Russian Dressing!

Just the very tip of iceburg Duh Mueller has nothing, Trumpkin Cultist live in a fantasy world jennifer proves with statement.


Quick easy list to send your crazy uncle on facebook:
• Papadopoulos: Pleaded guilty. Sentenced.
• Patten: Pleaded guilty.
• Manafort: Pleaded guilty.
• Cohen: Pleaded guilty.
• van der Zwaan: Pleaded guilty. Sentenced.
• Gates: Pleaded guilty.
• Pinedo: Pleaded guilty.
• Flynn: Pleaded guilty.

Oh yeh the Russian hooker she just went for plea deal,



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 12/14/2018 12:47AM by riverhousebill.

"Time for the witch hunt to be over"?? But we already caught the witch. I can hardly wait to sing: "Ding-dong the witch is dead"....

Quote
riverhousebill

Quick easy list to send your crazy uncle on facebook:

• Papadopoulos: Pleaded guilty. Sentenced.
• Patten: Pleaded guilty.
• Manafort: Pleaded guilty.
• Cohen: Pleaded guilty.
• van der Zwaan: Pleaded guilty. Sentenced.
• Gates: Pleaded guilty.
• Pinedo: Pleaded guilty.
• Flynn: Pleaded guilty.

Papadopoulos pleaded guilty one count of lying to the FBI.

Sam Patten pleaded guilty to failing to register as a foreign agent.

Manafort pleaded guilty to financial crimes involving his past work for Ukrainian politicians.

Cohen pleaded guilty to unrelated charges that he lied to banks to obtain improper loans and lied to the government to avoid paying taxes. (Tax Evasion charges) He pleaded guilty to multiple counts of business and tax fraud. Those crimes have absolutely nothing to do with Trump, but rather involve Cohen’s own business dealings.

Alex van der Zwaan pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI about his interactions with former Trump campaign aide Rick Gates.

Gates pleaded guilty to a false statement charge and Failure to File Reports of Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts, serving as an Unregistered Agent of a Foreign Principal, False and Misleading Foreign Agent Registration Act Statements.

Richard Pinedo pleaded guilty to identity fraud.

Flynn pleaded guilty of lying to the FBI.

***********

All stupid dumb-ass crimes that any prosecutor would catch any Democrat in if the shoe were on the other foot. BECAUSE ALL THESE GUILTY PLEAS HAVE ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH 'TRUMP/RUSSIA COLLUSION', which is the FABRICATED crime that Mueller is supposed to be investigating. NOTHING! Most of these 'crimes' happened before these people were involved with Trump.

The crime here is the Libs/Mueller wasting $25 million of taxpayer money on this WITCH HUNT/FISHING EXPEDITION! That The Libs have given Mueller free reign to investigate anybody and everybody that is and ever was connected to Trump into infinity! When Trump has not been charged with any crime and no crime has been committed! AN INVESTIGATION LOOKING FOR A CRIME!

Two years and ABSOLUTELY NOTHING related to Trump/Russia Collusion! Instead putting America and a sitting President through this horsesh*t based on Lib Lies! Because Trump Won the Election! Unflippingbelievable!

Despicable Libs!

Quote
riverhousebill
"Time for the witch hunt to be over"?? But we already caught the witch. I can hardly wait to sing: "Ding-dong the witch is dead"....

You idiots caught nothing! None of these guilty pleas have anything to do with "Trump/Russia Collusion"! Nothing! That's what this 'investigation' is supposed to be about, remember... oh, yeah - that was a lie. A Lie so you Libs could start an investigation to destroy Trump because he won the Election and you will try to get rid of him by any means, lawful or otherwise - lying, deceiving, manipulating, in collusion with the Lib Media - any way you can. Just like you tried to get rid of Kavanaugh with that despicable dog and pony show.

Devious Libs!

This is the Lib Culture and the Lib Politics.

The Lib Women are ruining America Culturally and the Lib Men are ruining America Politically

quote Jennifer A Lie so you Libs could start an investigation to destroy Trump


Ha Ha ha HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

start an investigation Ha ha HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

My dear Try about 85 investigations and a new one every day.

And she says Im not a Trump supporter Ha Ha HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

Muellers got nothing?
Papadopoulos: Pleaded guilty. Sentenced.
• Patten: Pleaded guilty.
• Manafort: Pleaded guilty.
• Cohen: Pleaded guilty.
• van der Zwaan: Pleaded guilty. Sentenced.
• Gates: Pleaded guilty.
• Pinedo: Pleaded guilty.
• Flynn: Pleaded guilty.
Whoops forgot the russian Girl just plead guilty. Order Up!! One nothing burger
with Russian Dressing!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/14/2018 06:12AM by riverhousebill.

But but but he has nothing

· Robert Mueller has had Trump’s tax returns from the day that his investigation began. Trump could try to shut down Mueller tomorrow, but the damage has already been done. Robert Mueller knows what Trump has done and how Trump did it.


First thing any investigator would look at in this type of investigation
would be Tax records, bank account.
When Mueller first started, I said to my self we will get the tax records now.
And in very short time you will know this to be true.
trumps Saud bullshit goes back decades.

Like the saying -Three things that can not be long hidden The Sun The Moon The Truth.

Ex-US Attorney: 'Absolutely' Mueller Has Trump Tax Returns
Newsmax
22 hours ago · So, does Mueller have Trump's tax returns? You bet." Trump has refused to release his tax returns during the 2016 presidential campaign, a stance he has maintained at the White House. Trump was the first president candidate since Richard Nixon to refuse to release his tax returns



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/15/2018 01:06AM by riverhousebill.

Nothing She say's Ha Ha HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
True they are all nothing low lifes, Not true Mueller has nothing.
to think Mueller has nothing is to not think,

The full list of known indictments and plea deals in Mueller’s probe
1) George Papadopoulos, former Trump campaign foreign policy adviser, was arrested in July 2017 and pleaded guilty in October 2017 to making false statements to the FBI. He got a 14-day sentence.

2) Paul Manafort, Trump’s former campaign chair, was indicted on a total of 25 different counts by Mueller’s team, related mainly to his past work for Ukrainian politicians and his finances. He had two trials scheduled, and the first ended in a conviction on eight counts of financial crimes. To avert the second trial, Manafort struck a plea deal with Mueller in September 2018 (though Mueller’s team said in November that he breached that agreement by lying to them).

3) Rick Gates, a former Trump campaign aide and Manafort’s longtime junior business partner, was indicted on similar charges to Manafort. But in February 2018 he agreed to a plea deal with Mueller’s team, pleading guilty to just one false statements charge and one conspiracy charge.

4) Michael Flynn, Trump’s former national security adviser, pleaded guilty in December 2017 to making false statements to the FBI.

5-20) 13 Russian nationals and three Russian companies were indicted on conspiracy charges, with some also being accused of identity theft. The charges related to a Russian propaganda effort designed to interfere with the 2016 campaign. The companies involved are the Internet Research Agency, often described as a “Russian troll farm,” and two other companies that helped finance it. The Russian nationals indicted include 12 of the agency’s employees and its alleged financier, Yevgeny Prigozhin.

21) Richard Pinedo: This California man pleaded guilty to an identity theft charge in connection with the Russian indictments, and has agreed to cooperate with Mueller. He was sentenced to 6 months in prison and 6 months of home detention in October 2018.

22) Alex van der Zwaan: This London lawyer pleaded guilty to making false statements to the FBI about his contacts with Rick Gates and another unnamed person based in Ukraine. He was sentenced to 30 days in jail and has completed his sentence.

23) Konstantin Kilimnik: This longtime business associate of Manafort and Gates, who’s currently based in Russia, was charged alongside Manafort with attempting to obstruct justice by tampering with witnesses in Manafort’s pending case last year.

24-35) 12 Russian GRU officers: These officers of Russia’s military intelligence service were charged with crimes related to the hacking and leaking of leading Democrats’ emails in 2016.

36) Michael Cohen: In August 2018, Trump’s former lawyer pleaded guilty to 8 counts — tax and bank charges, related to his finances and taxi business, and campaign finance violations — related to hush money payments to women who alleged affairs with Donald Trump, as part of a separate investigation in New York (that Mueller had handed off). But in November, he made a plea deal with Mueller too, for lying to Congress about efforts to build a Trump Tower in Moscow.

37) Roger Stone: In January 2019, Mueller indicted longtime Trump adviser Roger Stone on 7 counts. He accused Stone of lying to the House Intelligence Committee about his efforts to get in touch with WikiLeaks during the campaign, and tampering with a witness who could have debunked his story.

Finally, there is one other person Mueller initially investigated, but handed over to others in the Justice Department to charge: Sam Patten. This Republican operative and lobbyist pleaded guilty to not registering as a foreign agent with his work for Ukrainian political bigwigs, and agreed to cooperate with the government.

That’s the full list, but we’ll delve into the charges in a bit more detail below.

The five ex-Trump aides who struck plea deals with Mueller
Paul Manafort
Mark Wilson/Getty Images
So far, no Trump associates have been specifically charged with any crimes relating to helping Russia interfere with the 2016 election.

Yet five have pleaded guilty to other crimes. Manafort and Gates were charged with a series of offenses related to their past work for Ukrainian politicians and their finances. Papadopoulos and Flynn both admitted making false statements to investigators to hide their contacts with Russians, and Cohen admitted making false statements to Congress.

Papadopoulos: Back in April 2016, Papadopoulos got a tip from a foreign professor he understood to have Russian government connections that the Russians had “dirt” on Clinton in the form of “thousands of emails.” He then proceeded to have extensive contacts with the professor and two Russian nationals, during which he tried to plan a Trump campaign trip to Russia.

But when the FBI interviewed Papadopoulos about all this in January 2017, he repeatedly lied about what happened, he now admits. So he was arrested in July 2017, and later agreed to plead guilty to a false statements charge, which was dramatically unsealed in October 2017.

Initially, it seemed as if Papadopoulos was cooperating with Mueller’s probe. But we later learned that the special counsel cut off contact with him in late 2017, after he talked to the press. In the end, he didn’t provide much information of note, Mueller’s team said in court filing. His involvement with the investigation now appears to be over, and in September 2018, he was sentenced to 14 days incarceration.

Flynn: In December 2016, during the transition, Flynn spoke to Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak about sanctions that President Barack Obama had just placed on Russia, and about a planned United Nations Security Council vote condemning Israeli settlements.

But when FBI agents interviewed him about all this in January 2017, Flynn lied to them about what his talks with Kislyak entailed, he now admits. In December 2017, Flynn pleaded guilty to a false statements charge and began cooperating with Mueller’s investigation. We haven’t seen the fruits of his cooperation yet, and he has not yet been sentenced.

Manafort and Gates: This pair worked for Ukrainian politicians (and, eventually, the Ukrainian government) for several years prior to the Trump campaign, and made an enormous amount of money for it. Mueller charged them with hiding their lobbying work and the money they made from it from the government, as well as other financial crimes and attempts to interfere with the investigation.

Gates was the first to strike a plea deal. In February, Mueller dropped most of the charges he had brought against him. In exchange, Gates pleaded guilty to two counts — one conspiracy to defraud the United States charge encompassing the overall Ukrainian lobbying and money allegations, and a false statements charge. (With the latter, Gates admitted lying to Mueller’s team during a meeting this February. A Dutch lawyer, Alex van der Zwaan, also pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI related to his Ukrainian work with Gates.)

Manafort, meanwhile, fought the charges in two venues, Washington, DC, and Virginia. His first trial was in Virginia, and in August, it ended with his conviction on eight counts — five counts of subscribing to false income tax returns, one count of failing to report his foreign bank accounts, and two counts of bank fraud. The jury deadlocked on another 10 counts, so for those, the judge declared a mistrial.

The conviction finally brought Manafort to the table, and on September 14, he and Mueller’s team struck a plea deal requiring his cooperation. Manafort pleaded guilty to just two more counts — conspiracy to defraud the United States, and an attempted obstruction of justice charge. But he admitted that the other allegations Mueller previously made against him were true as well. The cooperation element of his plea deal fell apart in November, though, as Mueller’s team accused Manafort of lying to them.

Cohen: Mueller’s team was investigating Trump’s former attorney in 2017, but at some point, they referred the Cohen probe to the US Attorney’s office for the Southern District of New York (SDNY). It was SDNY that authorized the FBI raid of Cohen’s residence and office in April.

In August, Cohen cut a deal with SDNY. He agreed to plead guilty to 8 counts. Six of them involved his own finances — 5 tax counts involving hiding various income related to his taxi medallion business and other financial transactions from the US government, and a bank fraud count. Cohen also admitted participating in a scheme to violate campaign finance laws in connection with hush money payments to women alleging affairs with then-presidential candidate Donald Trump.

Then, in November, Cohen made his deal with Mueller. Here, he agreed to plead guilty to making false statements to Congress, to try and cover up his work on behalf of a Trump Tower Moscow project during the campaign.

Cohen had told Congress that the Trump Tower Moscow project ended early in the campaign, that he hadn’t discussed it much with others at Trump’s company, and that he hadn’t successfully gotten in touch with the Russian government about it.

In fact, he now admits, the project was still active months later, he’d talked about it with Trump more than he’d admitted (and with unnamed Trump family members), and he’d talked about it with an assistant for Russian President Vladimir Putin’s press secretary.

The newest Trump associate indicted: Roger Stone
Then, on January 25, another political operative with a decades-long history with Trump — Roger Stone — was indicted.

Various statements by Stone, including many public ones, raised questions about whether he had some sort of inside knowledge about WikiLeaks’s posting of Democrats’ hacked emails during the 2016 campaign.

Stone has long denied having any such knowledge — and claimed that anything he knew about WikiLeaks came through an intermediary, radio host Randy Credico. Mueller’s indictment alleges that this story was false — and that Stone’s telling it to the House Intelligence Committee was criminal.

Mueller’s indictment of Stone alleges that the GOP operative gave a false story to explain his knowledge about WikiLeaks.

Stone has been accused of lying about this to the House Intelligence Committee in 2017, and trying to tamper with a witness — Credico — so that he would stick to that false story. Read this explainer for more.

About two dozen overseas Russians have been charged with election interference
Mueller has also filed two major indictments of Russian nationals and a few Russian companies for crimes related to alleged interference with the 2016 election: the troll farm indictment, and the email hacking indictment.

The troll farm indictment: In February, Mueller brought charges related to the propaganda efforts of one Russian group in particular: the Internet Research Agency. That group’s operations — which included social media posts, online ads, and organization of rallies in the US — were, the indictment alleges, often (but not exclusively) aimed at denigrating Hillary Clinton’s presidential candidacy and supporting Donald Trump’s.

Mueller indicted the Internet Research Agency, two other shell companies involved in financing the agency, its alleged financier (Yevgeny Prigozhin), and 12 other Russian nationals who allegedly worked for it.

The specific charges in the case include one broad “conspiracy to defraud the United States” count, but the rest are far narrower — one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud and bank fraud, and six counts of identity theft. It is highly unlikely that the indicted Russian individuals will ever come to the US to face trial, but one company involved, Concord Catering, is fighting back in court.

No Americans have been charged with being witting participants in this Russian election interference effort. However, one American, Richard Pinedo of California, pleaded guilty to an identity fraud charge, seemingly because he sold bank account numbers created with stolen identities to the Russians. Pinedo agreed to cooperate with the probe as part of his plea deal. He was sentenced to 6 months in prison and 6 months home detention in October.

The email hacking indictment: Brought in July, here Mueller charged 12 officers of the GRU, Russia’s military intelligence agency, with crimes committed to the high-profile hacking and leaking of leading Democrats’ emails during the 2016 campaign.

Specifically indicted were nine officers of the GRU’s “Unit 26165,” which Mueller alleges “had primary responsibility for hacking the DCCC and DNC, as well as the email accounts of individuals affiliated with the Clinton Campaign” like John Podesta. Three other GRU officers, Mueller alleges, “assisted in the release of stolen documents,” “the promotion of those releases,” “and the publication of anti-Clinton content on social media accounts operated by the GRU.”

A trial here is unlikely, since all of the people indicted live in Russia.

Konstantin Kilimnik, a longtime Manafort associate, has been charged with obstruction of justice
Then, Konstantin Kilimnik — who worked with Manafort in Ukraine and is now based in Russia — was charged alongside Manafort with obstruction of justice and conspiracy to obstruct justice, in June.

Mueller argued that, earlier in 2018, Manafort and Kilimnik worked together to contact potential witnesses against Manafort and encourage them to give false testimony. He argues that this is attempted witness tampering, and qualifies as obstruction of justice.

The alleged tampering relates to the “Hapsburg group”— a group of former senior European politicians Manafort paid to advocate for Ukraine’s interests.

Both Manafort and Kilimnik tried to contact witnesses to get them to claim the Hapsburg group only operated in Europe (where US foreign lobbying laws don’t apply). But Mueller says there’s ample evidence that the group did work in the US too, and the witnesses thought Manafort and Kilimnik were trying to get them to commit perjury.

In Manafort’s September plea deal, he admitted to this. Kilimnik, however, is in Russia, and will likely remain there rather than face charges.

Sam Patten struck a plea deal after Mueller referred his investigation elsewhere
Finally, there’re another instance in which where Mueller surfaced incriminating information about someone, but handed off the investigation to elsewhere in the Justice Department.

Sam Patten: A GOP lobbyist who had worked in some of the same Ukrainian circles as Manafort and alongside Konstantin Kilimnik, Mueller’s team began investigating Patten, but at some point handed him off to the DC US attorney’s office. However, the plea deal Patten eventually struck obligated him to cooperate with Mueller.

According to a criminal information document filed by the DC US attorney’s office, Patten and Kilimnik (who is not named but referred to as “Foreigner A”) founded a lobbying and consulting company together. They did campaign work in Ukraine and lobbying work in the US, and were paid over $1 million between 2015 and 2017.

Specifically, the document claims that Patten contacted members of Congress and their staffers, State Department officials, and members of the press on behalf of his Ukrainian clients — all without registering under the Foreign Agents Registration Act, as required by law.

Patten also admits to helping his Ukrainian oligarch client get around the prohibition on foreign donations to Donald Trump’s inauguration committee. The oligarch sent $50,000 to Patten’s company, and then he gave that money to a US citizen, who bought the four tickets. The tickets were given to the oligarch, Kilimnik, another Ukrainian, and Patten himself.

Finally, Patten also admits to misleading the Senate Intelligence Committee and withholding documents from them during testimony this January. He pleaded guilty to one count of violating the Foreign Agents Registration Act.

The Vox guide to Robert Mueller’s Trump-Russia investigation
What’s the investigation all about? 8
Who’s been indicted? 7
These are the Trump associates who’ve pleaded guilty in the Mueller probe
Roger Stone’s arrest and indictment, explained
All the crimes Paul Manafort has been convicted of
Michael Cohen was just sentenced to 3 years in prison
Papadopoulos given 14-day sentence as part of the Mueller investigation
Judge rakes Michael Flynn over the coals in sentencing hearing
Mueller just indicted 12 Russian intelligence officers for hacking and leaking Democratic emails
Meet the other key players 7
What it all means for Trump 6
MOST READ

Trump claimed women were gagged with tape. Then Border Patrol tried to find some evidence.

Mick Mulvaney says Trump is actually prepared to let the government shut down again

Steve Martin mocks Roger Stone in SNL cold open: ‘Pardon me!’

Mueller's Still Got Nothing!

On the 'Trump/Russia Collusion'

Dershowitz: Mueller Has Found 'Almost No Crimes' From Before Russia Probe Started

Says Mueller not charging collusion-related crimes.

[insider.foxnews.com]

(Watch the Video Interview of Alan Dershowitz (Liberal) where he explains that Mueller's Got Nothing except what you call 'process crimes' meaning there was no crime except those 'Generated by the Investigation' related to the process of investigating the witness.)

***********

The indictment of Roger Stone is a "typical Mueller indictment," according to Alan Dershowitz.

Stone, a former political adviser to President Trump, has been indicted on charges of obstruction, making false statements and witness tampering as part of Special Counsel Robert Mueller's investigation.

On "America's Newsroom" Friday, Dershowitz, a Harvard Law professor emeritus, said the indictment is full of "stories" of Russian collusion, but all the actual charges are a result of the investigation.

"This is typical of Mueller. He has found almost no crimes that occurred before he was appointed special counsel," Dershowitz said, adding that's Mueller was appointed to find such crimes and he's "virtually failed" in that respect.

"Almost all of his crimes that's he's indicted people for are crimes that resulted from his investigation," Dershowitz said.

"But it really means that there's been a failure to uncover the basic crimes for which he was appointed. Namely, before he was appointed, was there illegal collusion, illegal conspiracy with Russia?"

Watch the full analysis above, plus see Andy McCarthy's reaction below from "Outnumbered."

She.s still stuck in the nothing fantasy Ha h HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

The indictment of Roger Stone is a "typical Mueller indictment," according to Alan Dershowitz. WTF? Ha Ha HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA


Trump ass kissers till the end!


Roger Stone with Nixon on his back Joins Muellers Indictments, More nothings Yup

apadopoulos: Pleaded guilty. Sentenced.
• Patten: Pleaded guilty.
• Manafort: Pleaded guilty.
• Cohen: Pleaded guilty.
• van der Zwaan: Pleaded guilty. Sentenced.
• Gates: Pleaded guilty.
• Pinedo: Pleaded guilty.
• Flynn: Pleaded guilty.
Whoops forgot the russian Girl just plead guilty. Order Up!! One nothing burger
with Russian Dressing!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/06/2019 12:16AM by riverhousebill.

Of course she would not comprehend

Glenn Kirschner Trump adviser Roger Stone's indictment in the Mueller probe suggests conspiracy charges may still be forthcoming
The special counsel's many investigatory dots are starting to connect.

look at the number of Guilty pleas so far.
A person would have to buy their own bullshit to say Mueller has nothing, or live in a complete fantasy?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/06/2019 12:44AM by riverhousebill.

Truth Fears No Investigation!

Trump and Nixon both slammed investigations in State of the Union
[www.cnbc.com]...
10 hours ago - Trump echoes Richard Nixon and Watergate as he slams 'partisan ... "I would like to add a personal word with regard to an issue that has ... I refer, of course, to the investigations of the so-called Watergate affair," Nixon said in the speech. ... me of these so-called ridiculous partisan investigations, there's not ...

Mueller's Got Nothing, Sounds like Al Capone talikng about the Feds.

Latest nothing-Special counsel Robert Mueller’s team revealed in a court filing Friday that it has evidence that Roger Stone, a major operative on President Donald Trump’s 2016 campaign, had communicated directly with WikiLeaks.

Trump swamp Mueller Oasis!

NY AG has somthing also y dear


One of the biggest threats to Trump and his associates might come from prosecutors in the Southern District of New York. That’s where Trump fixer Michael Cohen was first indicted. In December, SDNY prosecutors announced they secured a nonprosecution agreement with the National Enquirer’s parent company, American Media Inc., in which the company admitted it paid former Playboy Playmate Karen McDougal $150,000 to suppress her story about an alleged affair with Trump, a decision that AMI said it made in direct consultation with Trump’s team. Federal prosecutors in Manhattan recently sought interviews with officials at the Trump Organization. Allen Weisselberg, who was the Trump Organization’s chief financial officer, was granted immunity and has been cooperating with prosecutors since August.

Circle Up Trumpkins Mueller and co closing in'

he's got nothing Ha HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

Feds: We have Roger Stone's communications with Wikileaks and Guccifer 2.0

@#$%& show coming to an end.


Judge slams Manafort for lies about dealings with prominent Russian.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/18/2019 12:37AM by riverhousebill.

As per usual - LIB FAKE NEWS STORY!
Not "New"! Old News!

MEDIA HYPES ROGER STONE ‘REVELATION’ THAT HAS BEEN PUBLIC FOR A YEAR

[dailycaller.com]

* A court filing in the special counsel’s case against Roger Stone was widely interpreted in the press as explosive new evidence of the Trump confidant’s contact with WikiLeaks and Russian operatives.

* Prosecutors said Friday that search warrants used in the special counsel’s investigation revealed communication Stone had with WikiLeaks and Guccifer 2.0. Various news outlets seized on the filing as new evidence in the collusion probe.

* Stone’s contacts with WikiLeaks and Guccifer have been in the public domain for more than a year.

News outlets and media pundits on Friday seized on a court filing in the special counsel’s case against Roger Stone that referred to communication the longtime Trump confidant had with WikiLeaks and Guccifer 2.0, the group of alleged Russian operatives suspected of stealing Democrats’ emails during the 2016 campaign.

The court filing, which was touted as new, bombshell evidence by numerous news sources, including CNN and MSNBC host Rachel Maddow, may be less than meets the anti-Trump eye.

The filing seemingly refers to communication Stone had with WikiLeaks and Guccifer 2.0, which have already been made public. Those interactions, some of which Stone has released himself, show brief and seemingly innocuous encounters with both WikiLeaks and Guccifer 2.0.

In one exchange from Oct. 13, 2016, which Stone provided to The Daily Caller on Feb. 28, 2018, WikiLeaks appeared to chastise Stone for making “false claims of association” with the group.

Nearly two years ago, on March 10, 2017, Stone released private Twitter exchanges he had with Guccifer 2.0. He contacted Guccifer 2.0 on Aug. 14, 2016 to say he was “delighted” that its Twitter account had been reinstated after a suspension, the messages Stone released show. Two days later, Stone asked for a retweet of an article he had written. None of the messages show Stone discussing emails or asking for insight into what documents would be released.

The source of Friday’s breathless reporting about purportedly explosive new evidence against Stone is a court filing special counsel Robert Mueller submitted in response to a motion from Stone seeking a new judge for his case. The longtime GOP operative was indicted on Jan. 25 on seven counts related to the House Intelligence Committee’s own Russia investigation.

Mueller & Co. designated Stone’s case as related to indictments handed down on July 13, 2018 against 12 alleged Russian operatives suspected of hacking and disseminating Democrats’ emails. By linking the cases, the judge handling the case against the Russian operatives, Amy Berman Jackson, would be able to handle the Stone matter as well.

Stone objected to that move and sought a replacement for Jackson, who is also handling a case against former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort.

As part of the argument to maintain Jackson as the judge for the Stone matter, prosecutors noted that cases can be designated as related if prosecution against separate defendants “arises from a common … search warrant” and from “activities which are a part of the same alleged criminal event or transaction.”

Prosecutors went on to assert that: “In the course of investigating that activity, the government obtained and executed dozens of search warrants on various accounts used to facilitate the transfer of stolen documents for release, as well as to discuss the timing and promotion of their release.”

“Several of those search warrants were executed on accounts that contained Stone’s communications with Guccifer 2.0 and with Organization 1,” they said.

“Organization 1” is believed to be WikiLeaks.

Mueller has been investigating what Stone knew about the email dumps and any communication he may have had on the matter with WikiLeaks, Guccifer 2.0, President Donald Trump’s campaign and any other associates.

Stone, 66, has insisted that he had no direct contact with WikiLeaks or any Russian operatives, save for his Twitter exchanges.

Stone is accused of lying to the committee about his contacts with associates and Trump campaign officials regarding WikiLeaks. Stone has not been accused of communicating with WikiLeaks or Guccifer 2.0 regarding the hacking or release of Democrats’ emails. He was also not charged with lying to Congress when he denied having those communications.

Stone has claimed that he did not know the source of content of the final WikiLeaks dump until the group began releasing former Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta’s emails. Stone has said he learned through left-wing activist Randy Credico that WikiLeaks would release materials that would be damaging to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s campaign.

Text messages show that Credico, who is friends with a WikiLeaks lawyer, kept Stone apprised of WikiLeaks’ timeline for releasing Clinton-related documents.

Though Mueller’s filing appeared to refer to previously reported correspondence from Stone, numerous news outlets spun the filing as new, explosive evidence of possible collusion with WikiLeaks and Russian spies.

Maddow asserted on her show Friday night that Mueller’s filing revealed that Stone had contact with Russian operatives “concerning the stolen Democratic documents that the Russians hacked and staged for distribution during the campaign in a way that was designed to cause maximum damage to Hillary Clinton and maximum benefit to Donald Trump.”

Preet Bharara, a former U.S. attorney turned CNN analyst, proclaimed the story a “significant development.”

Evan McMullin, a leader of the anti-Trump resistance movement and frequent cable TV guest, claimed, without evidence, that Mueller’s filing established that Stone “was in direct contact with WikiLeaks and Russian intel” regarding “the timing and promotion of stolen emails.”

CNN reported the story with the headline “Special counsel prosecutors say they have communications of Stone with Wikileaks.”

Stone responded to the CNN story on his Instagram account, calling the headline a “[t]otal con job and old recycled smear.”

“The Mueller investigation looked for two years and can find nothing but recycle Twitter direct messages which have already been widely reported in the media and which prove absolutely nothing,” he wrote.

These two bit mobsters Caravan of Cons So Stine thinks he can threaten a federal Judge, Ha HAAAAA He will be in a cell on the 22nd,

Muellers Got Nothing Ha HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

Stone Calls Mueller a hit Man after his post with judge's picture and Gun crosshair.

This ship odf fools will be filling our federal prisons.
JUST IN: Judge Amy Berman Jackson orders Roger Stone to explain why the gag order AND/OR his conditions of release shouldn't be changed after yesterday's Instagram post.

“Russia, if you’re listening,” said Trump, looking directly into a television camera, “I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing” — messages Clinton was reported to have deleted from her private email server.

Ha Ha HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA Orange Moron busted by his twit tweets.

Court records follow Mueller's Uncovering of Russian Election Interference.
Idictment after Indictment, Guilty Plea by Guilty plea Mueller
Indirectly revealed Russain Investigation.

Muellers Got Nothing cultist say, But Trump did Get trump with hope your are able to find the 30 thousand emails that are missing Twit tweet

Carnaval of Cons going down. So Sad NY State to charge Stone, No Pardon so sad!

Powell: The Entire Russia Collusion Narrative Was Made Up

(Viodeo at the Link)

[www.realclearpolitics.com]

Journalist Sharyl Attkisson, the host of "Full Measure," interviews former federal prosecutor Sidney Powell about her allegation that the "entire Russia collusion narrative was made up" by anti-Trump political partisans in the FBI and Department of Justice:

SHARYL ATTKISSON, FULL MEASURE: Nearly two years ago, Special Counsel Mueller was named to investigate whether President Trump broke the law by somehow conspiring with Russian President Vladimir Putin to win the presidency. We still don’t know the outcome of that. But we’ve learned a lot about what some in our intelligence community have been up to. And some argue that’s proving to be an equally important— and chilling— story.

From Trump associate Roger Stone to former Trump lawyer Michael Cohen, and ex-Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort, the Trump-Russia probe has indicted or convicted 34 people so far. And although Special Counsel Robert Mueller has yet to publicly pinpoint illegal Russia collusion on Trump’s part he’s still looking. Meantime, former federal prosecutor Sidney Powell is making an explosive allegation. She’s among those who believe there’s now compelling evidence pointing to a parallel scandal.

In the simplest of terms if possible, what do you think is the story that's been uncovered in the past two years?

SIDNEY POWELL: That the entire Russia collusion narrative was made up. That the FBI and the intelligence community and the Department of Justice began an investigation against four American citizens simply because they worked for the opposition political candidate, that being Donald Trump.

Powell, who calls herself politically independent, served as an assistant prosecutor under nine U.S. Attorneys, both Democrats and Republicans. Where many see “Russia collusion” she sees systemic corruption inside the Justice Department and intelligence community. A topic she writes about in “License to Lie.” Crucial evidence, Powell claims, lies within these little-reported court documents— where our intel agencies get lambasted— not by partisans, but by the lead judge in the secretive Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.

SIDNEY POWELL: —A 99-page opinion, in which she is taking the FBI to task for having given unlimited, unsupervised access to raw intelligence, that means the database of everything the NSA, the National Security Agency, collects on everybody. Word searches, keystrokes, what do you look at in Google, telephone information, calls, texts, you name it. Everything, every nightmare anybody has of information being collected by big brother, the FBI gave three private contractors unlimited, unsupervised access to that as far back as 2015.

In an opinion dated October 2016, Judge Rosemary Collyer writes that an Inspector General found the FBI and National Security Agency—NSA—had committed “widespread” violations of key protections for Americans. And because they waited to notify the court until days before the election— many months after government watchdogs discovered the abuses— Collyer said the NSA was guilty of “institutional ‘lack of candor’ ” and “This is a very serious Fourth Amendment issue.”

SHARYL ATTKISSON: The Judge's language in this opinion is pretty harsh. She says that there could be Constitutional violations—

SIDNEY POWELL: Oh there were—

SHARYL ATTKISSON: She may say there were Constitutional violations.

SIDNEY POWELL: Yes, at one point she talks about egregious Fourth Amendment violations.

SHARYL ATTKISSON: And who was head of the FBI during this time period?

SIDNEY POWELL: That was Mr. Comey.

Like the Mob these Repukicans

Mueller has some more nothing, Its Called Witness Tampering.

Don and his Caravan of Cons! and she cackles he has nothing
just everyone in Trump circle Indicted, with an ongoing investigation.

Kind of stupid to think He has nothing with Investigation resuilts unkonwn
at this point in time. But some of us get a warm fuzzy feeling pretending we know the score right jennifer?

Mueller has busted a carvan of cons, Mueller is not the only Investigator.
AOC and Cohen remind Trump that Mueller isn't the only investigator he needs to worry about
Ocasio-Cortez's line of questioning should prove invaluable as House Democrats probe the president's financials.
Image: Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez questions former Trump personal attorney Cohen at House Oversight hearing on Capitol Hill in Washington
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., left, listens to Michael Cohen answer her question on Capitol Hill on
Wednesday. Joshua Roberts / Reuters
Feb. 28, 2019, 10:05 PM GMT+7 / Updated Feb. 28, 2019, 10:27 PM GMT+7
By Kurt Bardella, NBC News THINK contributor
If President Donald Trump’s family and finances were some kind of red line, no one told Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y. During the final hour of Wednesday’s hearing with former Trump personal attorney Michael Cohen, Ocasio-Cortez calmly pursued a line of questioning that puts the Trump family and Trump organization directly in the House Oversight Committee’s line of fire.

When it was first reported that Ocasio-Cortez was joining the committee, I wrote previously that the congresswoman affectionately known as AOC could become a real force of nature if she did the work necessary to prepare for congressional hearings.

The Republican committee members used much of their time to launch transparent obstruction attempts — or to obsess over whether Cohen wished to write a book.

Too often, members on both side of the dais squander their limited time for questions with meandering preambles, declarations and grandstanding. During my five years working with the House Oversight Committee, I always found that the most effective members were the ones who were succinct, direct and surgical in their line of inquiry. The point of a question should be to ask something that advances the conversation, and through it, the investigation.

SIGN UP FOR THE THINK WEEKLY NEWSLETTER HERE

The Republican committee members used much of their time to launch transparent obstruction attempts — or to obsess over whether Cohen wished to write a book. While such rhetorical theatrics may impress Donald Trump, they will have little impact on the committee’s investigative track. By refusing to engage on substance, Republicans have, by default, conceded that many if not all of Cohen’s statements about Trump’s conduct are indeed factual.

In contrast, the Democrats seemed much more prepared. In particular, Ocasio-Cortez’s line of questioning should prove invaluable as the committee’s work continues. Because while Robert Mueller’s investigation may be winding down, Congress is just getting started, especially when it comes to the president’s financial integrity.




Ocasio-Cortez questions Cohen on insurance fraud at hearing
FEB. 28, 201904:13
The freshman from the Bronx asked Cohen if “the president ever provide inflated assets to an insurance company.” Cohen’s one word response? “Yes.” She followed up by asking: “Who else knows that the president did this?” Cohen shared the names of three executives of the Trump organization: Allen Weisselberg, Ron Lieberman and Matthew Calamari. Then Ocasio-Cortez pointedly asked “where would the committee find more information on this; do you think we need to review his financial statements and tax returns to compare them?” Cohen’s response was again in the affirmative, adding that the information she apparently sought should be at the offices of the Trump organization.

Related

OPINION
Trump family's massive tax con job has been hiding in plain sight for years. And it could cost them millions.
The exchange was brief, almost understated. And yet, Ocasio-Cortez was able to elicit information from Cohen that will help the committee as it continues down a legitimate investigative path towards the president’s tax returns. The questions also opened the door to further inquiries into whether or not the president engaged in insurance fraud. The officials within the Trump organization named by Cohen are a new batch of breadcrumbs for Democrats to follow.

Contrast this longterm strategy with the tactics employed by Republicans on the panel. The conservative representatives used the bulk of their time, not to challenge the substance of Cohen’s testimony or the Democrats’ questions, but to insult and clumsily attack the witness.

Recommended

Quote
Jennifer
The Witch Hunt - Liberals Great Trump/Russia Collusion Conspiracy Theory - is almost done for - and there is no 'there' there. Total Fabrication of the Libs.

Here's the Headline -

"AG Bar says Mueller Report clears Campaign of Collusion With Russia"

As I said in the OP, Mueller's Got Nothing after two years of wasting the taxpayers' money, Nothing that proves there was any "Trump/Russia Collusion".

************

Here's Mark Levin explaining how the Mueller Report will not be released in full to the public - because it's against the law, duh!

'We must have the entire report," Lib Journalists are saying. The Lib Media, Lib experts, Lib talking heads, Lib talk show hosts, etc. are saying the Mueller Report must be released in full to the public and if not then they will subpoena Mueller or some such nonsense - here's why that's total stupidity and never going to happen -

Mark Levin Show Friday March 22 2019

[www.youtube.com]

************

Here's the Headline -

"AG Bar says Mueller Report clears Campaign of Collusion With Russia"

***********

The Attorney General is compelled to review the information and make a determination of what if anything should be provided. Why is that? Because this is a report from a Prosecutor's office. He held a Grand Jury in session for testimony for two years. They took testimony. What happened in a grand jury, witnesses do not have lawyers, there is no cross-examination, you can't challenge the documents, you can't challenge anything. It is an investigative tool for the prosecution. Of course he can't release the information. There is a rule Codify under Federal Rules of Procedure called 6E, secret Grand Jury Testimony, Secret Grand Jury Information, that is not to be made public. hundreds of people testified under the grand jury with the expectatiom that their testimony would not be made public under Rule 6E. Also there would be secret classified intelligence information. The Attorney General has got to take that into consideration.

An Attorney General might not want to release the entire report.

***********

Right now Nadler is holding a news conference saying earlier this month the House passed a resolution with some vote of something to something that Mueller must release the information to the public.

It's not going to happen; it's not supposed to happen BY LAW! Get that, dumb a*s Libs! Not gonna happen; don't have to happen, AGAINST THE LAW to happen!

"Executive privilege cannot be used to shield or hide wrongdoing," says Nader. The Libs will go on operating as if there was a great Trump/Russia Collusion for the rest of time in the whole world, and most of the world will still go on believing it, because of Perception - The Lib Narrative, Lib Rhetoric, that becomes 'common knowledge' and gets written into the Lib history books and the old history books are changed to the Libs' view of what happened ...

Barr just said he has to determine what THE LAW ALLOWS him to make public. Then Pelosi and Schemer said - Everything has to be released to the public. Not gonna happen; dream on.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 03/25/2019 12:08AM by Jennifer.

Here's brilliant lawyer, Liberal Alan Dershowitz, critiquing the Mueller Report, saying the Mueller Report is shameful because it's written like a law school essay giving both sides of the argument instead of making a decision, like is the responsibility of the Special Counsel.

Dershowitz says 'shame on Mueller,' calls Russia probe findings bad news for CNN

[www.foxnews.com]

Alan M. Dershowitz, the attorney and Harvard Law professor emeritus, slammed Robert Mueller on Sunday, saying the special counsel engaged in a “cop out” by stating that his report neither exonerated President Trump nor concluded he'd committed a crime related to obstruction of justice.

Dershowitz said Mueller seemed to try having it both ways. “It sounds like a law-school exam,” he said, adding that the report sounded wishy-washy. “Shame on Mueller.”

The special counsel “did not draw a conclusion” as to whether obstruction of justice took place, according to a letter with the key findings released Sunday by Attorney General William Barr.

Dershowitz also said it was a great day for Trump and a “very bad day for CNN” given how many of the left-leaning cable network's personalities and guests predicted the probe would lead to a slew of indictments for collusion and obstruction. “They should be hanging their heads in shame.”

Barr's four-page letter, addressed to top Democrats and Republicans on the House and Senate Judiciary Committees, offered key insight into the nearly two-year-long investigation, the results of which were submitted to the Justice Department on Friday.

Dershowitz said the job of the prosecutor is to make a binary decision, yes or no: yes means indictment and no means “shut up.”

He also said Mueller failed to have the "guts" to say yes or no, despite all the time and money spent on the probe.

Dershowitz said Mueller’s failure to say whether or not Trump obstructed justice will be cast shadow over the president.

“If there's an indictment, at least you have a chance to challenge it and fight back in court,” he said. “But if they say, ‘Oh, you were a bad boy, you almost obstructed justice,” how do you fight against that? Where do you defend yourself against that kind of charge?”



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/25/2019 01:27AM by Jennifer.

Just saw this :

In this Witch Hunt of the Libs there were:

3,000 Subpoenas

500 Search Warrants

500 Witness Interviews

$35 Million in Taxpayer Money

**********

"Liberals questioning whether the Trump Presidency is Legitimate" undermines our political system.

"Democrats knew that this was a conspiracy theory, but they didn't care; they lied to you America."

"Democrats are not going to let this go."

That's why I call them - The slimy Libs


**********

Headline:

AG Barr Letter to Congress: No Finding That Trump Campaign Conspired or Coordinated with Russia



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 03/25/2019 01:15AM by Jennifer.

Bob Kerrey: How did Department of Justice get the Trump-Russia investigation so wrong?

[www.omaha.com]

The writer, of New York, is a former Nebraska governor and U.S. senator.

Delusions fascinate me in part because I have so many of my own. Most often delusions are harmless. Sometimes they are not.

At the moment my fellow Democrats are suffering from two that are harmful. The first is that Americans long for a president who will ask us to pay more for the pleasure of increasing the role of the federal government in our lives. That this is a delusion can be seen in the promises made by six successful Democratic candidates in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Michigan: three governors and three senators. Not one of them supported the Green New Deal, a tax on wealth or “Medicare for all.”

The second Democratic delusion is that Americans were robbed of the truth when Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller and Attorney General William Barr concluded that President Trump did not collude with Russia in 2016. All evidence indicates that the full report will not change the conclusion that Donald J. Trump did not collude with Vladimir Putin to secure his victory in 2016.

Rather than investigating the president further, Congress needs to investigate how the Department of Justice got this one so wrong. If the president of the United States is vulnerable to prosecutorial abuse, then God help all the rest of us. Members of Congress cannot do this themselves. We do not trust them enough with such a vital mission.

Congress should create a nonpartisan commission to find out what went wrong and to tell us what needs to be done to make certain it never happens again.

A commission to investigate the FBI needs to focus on four questions:

1. Has the law that gave the director of the FBI a 10-year term of office been sufficient to protect the appointee from political pressure to investigate potential crimes of candidates or elected officials? Neither Democratic nor Republican mobs should decide the outcome of our criminal justice system.

2. How can we write clear rules that govern the behavior of the candidate or officeholder? Tweets can and do stoke the fire of the mob. That is what they are intended to do. When the chief law enforcement officer encourages his audience to chant “lock her up,” this signals the FBI to follow the mob. When he sends out tweets that encourage law enforcement to investigate political opponents, this is also mob rule. Rules of acceptable behavior do not apply just to the president but to Congress as well. In the Twitter age, all of us need to understand when our candidate has crossed the line.

3. When is it appropriate for the FBI to begin an investigation? Once started, these things are hard to stop. A single campaign official suggesting the possibility of collusion with a foreign power or a document written as opposition research or a demand from a member of Congress are very thin reeds upon which to challenge the legitimacy of an elected official.

4. Are federal pardons justified? The commission needs the authority to examine whether some Americans were convicted and sentenced because they did not tell the truth about a collusion that never happened. The commission should be given the authority to recommend a pardon for anyone it believes was sentenced unjustly.

Our democracy will survive the hostility of Vladimir Putin. What it may not survive is distrust of our system of justice. At the moment that distrust is deep and wide. We need a nonpartisan national commission to tell us what has just happened and to advise us on what we need to do to keep it from happening again.

*********

Democrat Joseph Robert Kerrey is an American politician who served as the 35th Governor of Nebraska from 1983 to 1987 and as a United States Senator from Nebraska from 1989 to 2001.