General Question

Hawaii_Jake's avatar

What does the redacted Mueller Report tell us?

Asked by Hawaii_Jake (31140points) 1 month ago

I’ve read some summaries. One states simply that the Special Counsel never intended to indict the President believing that is Congress’ responsibility.

It seems there are 11 instances of obstruction of justice by the President.

One report states that the cooperation between the Trump Campaign and Russia to influence the election did not rise to prosecutorial standards.

What more is coming out of the redacted report?

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

103 Answers

zenvelo's avatar

That even among the most complicit people in the country (those willingly working for Trump) there is enough decency to not break the law by carrying out his wishes.

stanleybmanly's avatar

Barr says it means “Nothing to see here. Move on, these are not the droids you’re looking for. Ignore that man behind the curtain. I am not a crook!” But the one thing beyond obfuscation is that Mueller willingly placed the matter of obstruction of justice in the hands of the Congress.

Hawaii_Jake's avatar

This is not Twitter, and you are not limited to 145 characters. @stanleybmanly and @zenvelo , can you expound please?

luigirovatti's avatar

You can’t tell they are being reductive. If they want to expand on their sentences, they don’t need you to tell them. The statement in itself is reductive, and derogatory.

Patty_Melt's avatar

While beating that dead horse, you might notice even the flies are screaming, “Innocent! Move the hell on.”

Hawaii_Jake's avatar

@Patty_Melt I am not reading anyone who is saying that anyone involved is innocent. On the contrary, I am reading that this will lead straight to impeachment.

@all I’m sorry for assuming it was possible to have a nuanced discussion on Fluther.

Hawaii_Jake's avatar

Link

It is clear from what is being reported that under guidance from the Office of Legal Counsel, Mueller declined to indict Trump, but it is equally clear that Trump obstructed justice, an impeachable offense.

stanleybmanly's avatar

@zenvelo’s point is well taken. The fool can thank God that his fat ass was in the hands of a reputable man heading an agency both of which had the integrity to ignore his slandering of them and their work. Also that the the fool had the impossibly good luck in that his underlings consistently refused to carry out the dummy’s illegal wishes.

Yellowdog's avatar

It is quite a stretch to say there is evidence of obstruction in the Mueller report.

The White House was 100% compliant with the Special Counsel probe. No one was fired. No one obstructed any procedure.

zenvelo's avatar

@Hawaii_Jake My view is based on former White House Counsel Don McGahn being told to get Mueller fired, twice, but not carrying it out.

Yellowdog's avatar

@stanleybmanly Trump could have fired anyone on the probe at any time. It might have not been politically advantageous, but he did not have to ask ANYONE to fire anyone in the investigation.

Hawaii_Jake's avatar

@zenvelo Thank you for that clarification.

Hawaii_Jake's avatar

@Yellowdog

Link

Trump asked to have Mueller fired, but he was rebuffed by more intelligent people working for him.

Darth_Algar's avatar

@Patty_Melt

No. No one is saying “innocent”. Even Barr’s 4 page cliff notes summary makes it clear that Mueller’s report does not exonerate Trump.

Inspired_2write's avatar

That Trump DID try to slow down/impede the investigation, and for what reason?
Could be any number of things such as:

1. By impeding that process he or someone else had more time to erase emails and information,contacts, phone calls etc

2. To have time to build up his base through manipulation.

3. To fire those that got too close to the truth and or to impede.

4. To cause confusion through his tweets, and or manipulating the media.

5. To manipulate the public by stating incorrect facts ( re: I am exonerated, when he was NOT).

6. To waste resources over his wall and military resources, taking funds from the Pentagon to fund his wall and to keep in the media.

7. To mention to the public Pelosi’s planned security trip overseas of which he obstructed and put her and others in possible harms way.

8. To not act as a rational President in international affairs that made the whole world doubt and mistrust the U.S.

much more but I will stop here as you get the point?

Pandora's avatar

That Trump tried to obstruct the investigation but because they can’t find where he was successful, the President actually has the power of a king and can appoint an Attorney General to protect him from Prosecution by obstructing justice and mudding the waters. It also tells me he’s not in the clear if he loses 2020. Charges can still be pending.

Inspired_2write's avatar

@Pandora
Exactly!
Much better to go after after he loses the Presidency in 2020 as its much harder but not impossible while he is a standing President.Much of Trumps problems comes from his own immaturity.

Stache's avatar

I’m exhausted from musing where Trump is concerned. Please excuse my language but I’m at the point where I believe Trump could rape a child and get away with it.

My only hope at this point is 2020.

Yellowdog's avatar

Wow—just wow.

You have no idea what’s coming.

But for now, it sounds like you’re saying that if Trump didn’t join in the coup against himself, he is obstructing.

seawulf575's avatar

I think this question is pure flame-bait. The OP has not read the report at all, just summaries from liberal “news” outlets. I think most of those responding have not read the report at all. This question was posted very shortly after the report came out so the only way anyone can respond is by repeating what the propaganda outlets have told them to say. No one had the time to actually read this report (448 pages in a pdf file) so even the “news” outlets had prepared statements and stories to spew forth as soon as it was released. None of them read it either.
I started reading the report and saw some disturbing things in there that I need to read further to see if they are truly that disturbing. And no, it isn’t disturbing against Trump…sorry. But there may be more that is disturbing against Trump as I read on.
So until people actually read the report, any comments about the report are pure nonsense.

Darth_Algar's avatar

“I think this question is pure flame-bait.”

Of course you do.

seawulf575's avatar

And as expected, you take a pot shot at me but totally avoid my reasoning. Typical for you.

LostInParadise's avatar

What are we to make of presidential aides who refused to obey Trump’s orders? Link Has that happened in the past? White House counsel Don McGahn was told to fire Mueller but refused. Did McGahn take Trump seriously? Was he fired? Was it just assumed that Trump was talking nonsense and was not to be taken seriously?

seawulf575's avatar

Having now read most of the executive summary of Vol 1 of the Mueller report, I am disturbed by what it says and doesn’t say. The entire section of the Russian hacking and releasing of the DNC computers is based on information from the cyber company Hillary and the Dems hired to evaluate the computers and servers. If you remember, Hillary and the Dems also refused to let the FBI do forensic analysis of this equipment and in fact destroyed said equipment after their hired guns were “done” with it. Effectively, what is being said is that Hillary and the DNC have told a story to Mueller and he has taken it as gospel. No charges of destroying evidence were considered against these folks. That is disturbing. It also solidifies my claims all along that this is a witch hunt. Much of the information that led to the start of the FBI investigations came from the Steele Dossier which was opposition research that was given to the FBI and which the FBI did not verify. They, again…like Mueller…accepted it with no questions asked as being truthful. And based on that information, Mueller made many assumptions and went with them. More proof that it was a witch hunt. All in all, it looks like every time something pointed towards Hillary or the DNC, Mueller purposely avoided looking at it. Another basis Mueller used for saying there might be evidence of collusion was the joke Trump made about asking Russia to see if they could find Hillary’s 30,000 missing emails. When you want to try using what was an obvious sarcastic joke as the basis for a multi-million dollar investigation, you are really in witch hunt mode.
But even with this much bias built in, there is obviously no signs of collusion between Trump and the Russians anywhere. I haven’t gotten much into the obstruction considerations. But as I read more, I will probably comment further. And since I seem to be the only one actually reading the report (not just regurgitating liberal propaganda), I’ll try to keep you all informed.

Darth_Algar's avatar

@seawulf575

Your entire post was nothing but a potshot. If you want people to address your “reasoning” then try constructing a reasoned post in the first place.

Demosthenes's avatar

I don’t think anyone can deny that the collusion narrative is over. It didn’t pan out and Trump has been cleared.

So what’s left is obstruction. Trump did some things that could be construed as obstruction. The Dems see it as evidence that Trump tried to stop a legitimate investigation into potential collusion. The Repubs see it as evidence that there was a coup against the president.

So pick your narrative :)

seawulf575's avatar

@Darth_Algar again…I can tell you have not read the document. The information I came right from it and from knowledge that has been verified to be true in the past. So while you are trying to deride me for taking pot shots, you might want to look in the mirror. Do you ever get tired of projecting?

Darth_Algar's avatar

@seawulf575

Oh be silent. You haven’t read the fucking thing either.

seawulf575's avatar

@Darth_Algar I have told you how much I read so far and I commented on that. The fact that you didn’t even crack the book open and are trying to act like you know what’s in it shows your ignorance.

Darth_Algar's avatar

@seawulf575

I said nothing about the report, braintrust.

seawulf575's avatar

@Darth_Algar that’s true, your post was a pot shot at my comments that were based on the report. You, in your ignorance and with an urge to impress the liberals on these pages, felt obliged to try ridiculing my statements. When you do that without having a clue what the topic actually is (because you never read the report), you appear to be foolishly condescending. You speak from ignorance and appear to be just trying to shut me up. I refuse to give in to bullies and I refuse to give in to ignorance. Either way, I will not give in to you. Now, if you care to read the Mueller report and try discussing it with me, I will give you credence. But what am I saying? If you read it, you might not get the same bullshit talking points the liberal propagandists feed you.

Darth_Algar's avatar

@seawulf575

No, my comments were a potshot at your inane potshots towards other members.

Yellowdog's avatar

Crowdstrike, whom Hillary and the DNC hired to investigate the hacked servers (they refused to turn them over to the FBI) is not a reliable source for the Mueller probe.

Tropical_Willie's avatar

Okay @Yellowdog,
The reason CrowdStrike, “is not a reliable source for the Mueller probe”; Hillary and DNC hired them! That is so so circular logic, the same type off logic says that Trump colluded when he told the Russians to hack Hillary’s emails ! Which they did hack them.

seawulf575's avatar

Actually, @Tropical_Willie the differences are so tremendous it is staggering. The data from CrowdStrike is data that was commissioned by Hillary and the Dems. They purposely destroyed all the evidence so that only the CrowdStrike data exists. This amounts to an accusation without proof. They could have said that Martians hacked the DNC and there would be no way to verify that claim. So what you basically have is a political figure making an accusation against their opponent and the FBI and Mueller accepting that accusation as gospel. The comment Trump made about hacking Hillary was an obvious joke and was done well after the “hacking” had occurred and Trump was already being accused of working with Russia. And there is zero evidence that anything happened after Trump made his joke. So the differences, since you typically need these things spelled out, are that on one hand you have potentially doctored and unsubstantiated accusations being used as proof to launch a multimillion dollar investigation and on the other you have a joke that no sane human takes seriously.

Tropical_Willie's avatar

@seawulf575

So if CrowdStrike had bogus data for Hillary; Trump telling Russia to hack Hillary’s servers was COLLUSION !

seawulf575's avatar

Oh brother. You are hopeless.

Tropical_Willie's avatar

I’m hopeless because . . . I don’t believe the orange haired and bad make-up fifth grader and his third grade minions.!

Logic is not your strong point.

seawulf575's avatar

No, you are hopeless because your logic is so faulty. CrowdStrike didn’t give bogus data to Hillary…they reported exactly what she wanted. It was a fairly tale. They created a report saying Russia did it then destroyed all the evidence so no one could actually verify the data. That borders on destroying evidence. If the DNC and Hillary actually were hacked by a foreign government, who would be the appropriate organization to investigate? The FBI would be a good starting point. Yet they absolutely refused to let the FBI near their hacked equipment. Why? And if you want to have your own private company evaluate the equipment, why destroy the equipment afterwards? Why not sit down with the FBI and show them exactly why you think it is Russia…show them your methodology. After all, if a criminal activity was done (which is what they claim), it would have to be prosecuted at some point and you would be far better off having the FBI backing you up. But it didn’t happen. Yet this illogical action was what Mueller accepted without question. And you don’t want to ask the questions either.
As for Trump telling Russia to hack Hillary’s servers…you are an even bigger fool. He was asked about Russia hacking the DNC. The hack and supposedly already occurred. He didn’t call for it. And Mueller’s report didn’t show any other hacking. Trump pointed out that he didn’t know anything about it, that it could have been Russia or China or even some guy in his bed, and that it showed him that none of the world leaders respected us or our leader (Obama at the time). He then said that if Russia or whoever was listening, if they could find Hillary’s missing 33,000 emails, they would be mightily rewarded by our press. It wasn’t even a serious thing. One of the reporters tried starting the idea that he just called for Russia to hack Hillary and asked if it didn’t bother him it might be taken that way. He responded that what really bothered him was that Hillary, even after being served with a subpoena, deleted 33,000 emails. And that should bother everyone.
I suspect you really didn’t know the entire story on this since you seem to only be good at regurgitating what the worst of the liberal outlets spew. But really, your grasp on things really shows your ignorance.

Tropical_Willie's avatar

And If the Russian are listening, . . .

Five hours later Hillary’s servers were HACKED !!!! Collusion and obstruction are on the way !!

Patty_Melt's avatar

And if you are waiting at a bus stop and light a cigarette, your bus will then come around the corner, because dispatchers are watching via security cameras, and they don’t want you to smoke.
Conspiracy theory much?

Tropical_Willie's avatar

“The sky is orange and my hair is blue; you believe anything I tell you”. Trump says !

Patty_Melt's avatar

I don’t believe anyone 100%. I tend to go with proof.

You guys are funny.

stanleybmanly's avatar

what’s funny is he said that while both he and his hair are orange. But then, let’s not delve into regions involving both the fool and the truth. The thing that interests me is that the fool was apparently saved because he sought to have his minions obstruct justice through such expedients as assigning them the duties of firing those investigating him. Fortunately (for him) they all refused. Which brings up an interesting point. Did you notice how those formerly accustomed to carrying out his orders found themselves indicted or convicted?

stanleybmanly's avatar

That apparently is the reward for servicing the fool who understands little about his office or for that matter, anything else. You either wind up kicked to the curb like Sessions or jailed for your “loyalty”.

stanleybmanly's avatar

@Yellowdog That’s an interesting point you make about Trump’s ability to fire anyone at anytime. What does that say about his character when he turns to underlings for his dirty work? Because he got scorched when rashly firing Comey, he turned to flunkies to take the bullet for him. The “you’re fired “ President is also a coward. The fact that not a single toady would do his bidding is all but miraculous.

Patty_Melt's avatar

Hush Mr Harding!

seawulf575's avatar

@Tropical_Willie You really are a conspiracy theorist! Your timeline is entirely wrong. Trump make his comment in early July 2016. DCLeaks had already leaked the “hacked” emails before that. So your claim that 5 hours later the hacking occurred is complete crap. But I know in your fantasy realm, facts don’t matter.

Tropical_Willie's avatar

I said Russia Reading comp is down, five hours later Russia hacked Hillary.

You really must be working for Putin’s Chef/GRU!

Tropical_Willie's avatar

Facts do matter to me, rather viewing a ultra-conservative and Trump SLANT!

seawulf575's avatar

Obviously reading comprehension IS down and no, facts don’t matter to you. Here…let me spell it out for you. I will use small words so you can keep up. Hillary and the DNC was hacked (as per the Mueller report) in March and April of 2016. Now to help you out, March and April happen annually before July (when Trump made his comment). There was no further “hacking” done. So your claim that they “hacked” 5 hours after Trump made his comment is entirely wrong and probably born of liberal conspiracy theory. Next: to your reading comprehension. I never said DCLeaks hacked anyone. What I said is that they RELEASED the hacked materials. The hacking was done in March and April, but for that hack to have any meaning, it would have to be released. So your frantic effort to look smart has backfired once again.
Tell you what…take a few months away from your liberal propaganda outlets, take a few deep breaths, and think for yourself. You MIGHT sound less fanatic.

Tropical_Willie's avatar

READ IT ! !

Mueller’s report also found a cause-and-effect between Trump’s remarks in July 2016 and subsequent cyberattacks.

“I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing,” said then-candidate Trump at a press conference, referring to emails Clinton stored on a personal email server while she headed the State Department. Mueller’s report said “within approximately five hours” of those remarks, GRU officers began targeting for the first time Clinton’s personal office.

More than a dozen staffers were targeted by Unit 26165, including a senior aide. “It is unclear how the GRU was able to identify these email accounts, which were not public,” said Mueller.

Mueller said the Trump campaign made efforts to “find the deleted Clinton emails.” Trump is said to have privately asked would-be national security advisor Michael Flynn, since convicted following inquiries by the Special Counsel’s office, to reach out to associates to obtain the emails. One of those associates was Peter Smith, who died by suicide in May 2017, who claimed to be in contact with Russian hackers — claims which Mueller said were not true.”

seawulf575's avatar

@Tropical_Willie I need you to give a citation because when I try searching for any of the garbage you just spouted in the actual Mueller report, it isn’t there. I’m suspecting you have some fake news liberal outlet feeding you bogus information and you are sopping it up with a biscuit.

Tropical_Willie's avatar

Liberal lieing AGAIN !

I know that is you deflecting again again and again.

seawulf575's avatar

Guess asking you to support your blathering is too much.

Tropical_Willie's avatar

Defect and demean, you must has gone to Trump University.

Yellowdog's avatar

The 33,000 emails that Hillary deleted (obstruction, anyone?) and acid washed, that Trump “asked” if Russia could produce, were not even dumped by Wikileaks, as you ascertain

They (including marked classified material) were found on the laptop of Anthony Weiner when he was being investigated for sexting a teenage girl. That alone should repulse you. Of course, he was never charged with anything.

The emails Trump ‘requested’ weren’t produced by Russians but on Anthony Weiner’s laptop of images of his weiner sent to a 15 year old girl.
Just like Justin Fairfax, Keith Ellison, Cory Booker, and others who have committed violence and perverted acts against women. no democrat cares. But sometimes, there are unintended consequences—like finding Hillary’s deleted emails.

Why didn’t you care about the obstruction of deleting the emails, or the content of the emails, or the sexting of a teenage girl? All you care about is what Trump said at a political debate, that was not even a serious comment.

Tropical_Willie's avatar

Trump is against the Constitution and wants to run the country his way and not the American way. Hope his way doesn’t sweep you into somewhere you don’t want to be.

Darth_Algar's avatar

@Yellowdog

I know he’s kinda old news at this point, but I gotta ask – did you care about Denny Hastert? I ask because I’ve known a lot of conservatives who didn’t or insist that he was somehow set up.

LostInParadise's avatar

@Yellowdog , Is there any evidence that any of the emails on Weiner’s computer were classified? Kindly provide a link. If none of the email was classified it is of no significance.

seawulf575's avatar

@LostInParadise I’ll help here

https://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-least-18-classified-emails-found-weiners-laptop/

Now that is only 18 on one laptop. We have no idea how many classified documents were actually sent out to others or resent from there. That is the problem with the whole Hillary email thing. And the FBI concluded she did, in fact, mishandle classified materials. LOTS of classified materials. But the corrupt Obama DoJ refused to prosecute her. Smacks of Jussie Smollett all over again.

Tropical_Willie's avatar

@seawulf575 You copying again?
Judiaclal Watch is questionable source and based on extreme right wing bias, promotion of conspiracy theories and a very poor fact check record. Oh known to promote “Fake News” supporting Trump.

seawulf575's avatar

@Tropical_Willie

Oh okay ALL CONSERVATIVES LIE!

DEFLECT

Isn’t that the sort of silly reply you made to me (except yours said liberals instead of conservatives) when I not only told you your source was biased but also explained in excruciating detail how and why it was biased? But wait! you didn’t actually prove my source was bad or how they were slanted. They showed that classified emails were found on Weiner’s laptop. Want a different source? Ok

https://www.cnn.com/2017/12/29/politics/huma-abedin-state-department-email-release/index.html

Better? Even the uber-lefty CNN had to admit there were classified materials being sent to Weiner’s laptop. That is loss of control of classified materials and is a criminal offense.
Tell you what…when you want to try sounding smart, you might want to think about who you are addressing. I will never let you get away with being smarmy or, as is your usual wont, sneery. You just aren’t that smart to try sounding superior to pretty much anyone on these pages. If I give you a citation and you don’t like the source, that is your problem, not mine. If, however, you find something you disagree with in the substance of the citation, feel free to address it. That includes obvious slant, the use of language to change the feeling of the actual facts, the use of opinion as fact or the use of innuendo, or the anything that is just completely off topic. Because you can bet I will tear your citations apart on all these things as well. I can say that with all assurance because you only know liberal propaganda.

Response moderated (Flame-Bait)
Response moderated (Unhelpful)
Response moderated (Unhelpful)
Response moderated (Unhelpful)
Response moderated (Unhelpful)
Response moderated (Unhelpful)
Response moderated
Stache's avatar

@stanleybmanly You and many others, including myself, know the truth. It’s all cool. Let the moderation team enjoy a holiday. It appears it’s been ugly here today.

stanleybmanly's avatar

Agreed Happy Easter!

ragingloli's avatar

Here is a video about the report by an actual lawyer:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f71Rasj_0JY

stanleybmanly's avatar

Nice work loli!

seawulf575's avatar

Here is a video about the report by an actual lawyer:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7V7FhyS2sDI

ragingloli's avatar

@seawulf575
That video is about the intentionally misleading Barr summary letter.

LostInParadise's avatar

If Trump did not engage in collusion, then why did he try to obstruct the Mueller investigation? It seems difficult to separate the two items. If Trump was truly innocent of collusion he should have welcomed the investigation as a way of clearing himself of all charges.

Patty_Melt's avatar

Loli, you did not watch the video beyond the intro.
It is about the Mueller report, and how Barr’s letter relates to the report.
I think I would like to check the success rate of the lawyers in both videos. I’m wondering if there is very much disparity between their careers.

seawulf575's avatar

@ragingloli so you know more than an attorney? Got it.

ragingloli's avatar

First, I HAVE watched it to the end.
Second, have you CHECKED the the DATE the video was posted?

Yellowdog's avatar

@LostInParadise First of all, Trump did not impede or obstruct the investigation in any way. It was known even before the Mueller investigation began (according to Mike Pompeo, director of the CIA at the time) that there was no collusion and the Dossier was a coordinated effort of Hillary Clinton and Fusion GPS who worked closely with Hillary Clinton. I have yet to find an example where Trump obstructed or impeded the investigation.

@ragingloli I can assure you that Barr’s summary letter is a correct representation or summarization of the Mueller report.

Darth_Algar's avatar

@Yellowdog

Even the part where Barr’s summary states that the Mueller report does not exonerate Trump?

Yellowdog's avatar

That was not the purpose of the Mueller report, to exonerate or indict. This is the job of the Attorney General, using the information compiled by the Special Counsel, which found no collusion.

It was, however, an effort to find a crime, using a team of powerful attorneys who supported Hillary. A few were Hillary’s personal attorneys or those of the Clinton foundation. Sources such as Crowdstrike and Fussion GPS and the Steel Dossier (Christopher Steele and Fusion GPS were working with the Hillary campaign for “opposition research”).

No actual evidence of these crimes were found.

Darth_Algar's avatar

Yup. In other words: “it’s all true except for the parts I don’t want to hear”.

Patty_Melt's avatar

Eyeroll, with sigh.

Yellowdog's avatar

Actually, no @Darth_Algar—what I think is, you don’t want to hear ANY of it. So its made to say things it actually does not,

As for me, I only wonder why Mueller would make innuendo when there is no evidence of a crime found. That’s normally not the way its done—it implies that although there was no evidence, the investigator / wanna-be prosecutor is trying to create a problem anyway,

Tropical_Willie's avatar

Okay, Manafort is “chopped chicken liver”, agreed his jail time was for things he did before Trump hired; the known Russian and Ukrainian connection.

Tropical_Willie's avatar

The answer is Mueller followed DOJ protocol “You cannot indict a sitting President”. The Congress has to decide what to do!
@Yellowdog it will be very interesting over the next year while Trump’s transgressions and obstructions are detailed and sent to the people. This September through elections November 2019 would be the time for Dem’s to start and through the next 11 months after that.

Yellowdog's avatar

You DO realize there’s nothing to indict, don’t you?

Barr may not go along with your narrative, but what’s different is, he actually IS following the law to the letter—and DOJ protocol puts Barr at the head. Its the AG’s role to give the results

I am actually pleased at what the Dems on the house of representatives are devoting their time to. They are certainly NOT doing their jobs with the real issues facing the country—Social Security will be broke in eighteen years, Medicare in eight. What is congress doing (besides promoting that medicare be distributed to everyone)? Just an insane drive to impeach the president and say that they need to save democracy. They are even more hysterical than they were with the Russia hoax, but the country isn’t responding anymore.

The nation’s infrastructure is bad. They are actually obstructing the wall. Impeachment is baseless as far as crime or conduct goes (you cannot obstruct when there is no underlying crime—nor is defending one’s self defined as obstruction).

I basically told several of you what the Mueller report would contain before it did. No collusion.

Back when you all were bellyaching that the Mueller report wasn’t being released, I told you it would within one day of when it actually was.

Criminal referrals will be brought against James Comey within three weeks from now. He will probably be indicted.

Brennan and Clapper will likely be indicted after the Horowitz report is released in May or June and criminal referrals brought.

The only real Russian collusion by an American—well, the New York Times is already saying the Steele dossier was Russian disinformation. They are right. But it was bought and paid for by Hillary—its author Christopher Steele and Fusion GPS who were working for the Clinton campaign. The money was funneled through the law firm Perkins Coie.

I assume that Hilary’s destroying subpoenaed servers, hard drives, deleting subpoenaed emails will eventually bring obstruction charges because documented crimes were actually committed and deliberately not brought to justice.

There is no case for crimes involving Trump, who has been completely transparent the past couple of years. Lets see how well Comey, Clapper, Brennan, Hillary, and perhaps even Obama fare in upcoming months.

Tropical_Willie's avatar

I assume that Hilary’s destroying subpoenaed servers, hard drives, deleting subpoenaed emails will eventually bring obstruction charges because documented crimes were actually committed and deliberately not brought to justice.Straight from a right wing editorial !

Yellowdog's avatar

Can YOU see any possible way that destroying subpoenaed devices and deleting emails and removing SIM cards for known, actual CRIMES would not be considered obstruction?

What about the frauds committed on the FISA courts involving the Steele dossier (“Russian Disinformation”) to spy on an opposing political party? Can’t you see that some people are about to be in a whole lot of trouble?

Yet you’re saying that calling the Mueller Investigation a witch hunt is an impeachable offense?

What about Comey’s firing? Was that obstruction? Well, his role with the Steele dossier, and leaking it to the media—certainly justifies why he was fired. Within three months I believe he will be in prison for a long, long time.

seawulf575's avatar

@Yellowdog I love ya, brother, but you don’t really expect any of the liberal jellies to actually say that Hillary did anything wrong, do you? If an investigation starts into her, they will change their tune about investigations. Instead of “if she did nothing wrong, then you have nothing to worry about” they will be spewing all sorts of things about how she has already been investigated (conveniently ignoring the fact that they were all bogus investigations) and they will tell you that the AG let her go. They won’t see the hypocrisy between a corrupt AG like Lynch (who secretly met with Bill Clinton just days before letting Hillary off) and a stand up guy like Barr who is following the law. (Please expect to see someone cut/paste that statement about Barr and try to smear him). I applaud you for trying to point out the obvious, but the liberals cannot accept the obvious if it doesn’t support their warped narratives.

Response moderated (Personal Attack)
LostInParadise's avatar

What is with this Hillary obsession? Her political career is most likely at an end.

Here is an article about the opinion of Fox News commentator Andrew Napolitano. Regarding Trump’s behavior, he concludes, “But ordering obstruction to save himself from the consequences of his own behavior is unlawful, defenseless and condemnable.”

Yellowdog's avatar

(1) Hillary is significant because all of this started with the Hillary-Obama administration, where Hillary committed real, actual crimes, was cleared of them unlawfully, and commissioned the dossier with Christopher Steele. Everything that has been foisted on the American people this year, doing more damage than any Russian disinformation, goes back to the Hillary campaign with the aide of Loretta Lynch and the Obama DOJ.ri

Criminal referrals have already been made. A report on Comey will be out in a few weeks, and the Horowitz report will be out in May or June. People WILL go to prison.

Do you think these crimes/conspiracies against a presidential candidate and then a president elect and sitting president should go unpunished, just because Hillary lost an election? Trump did nothing, yet you are scurrying to find ANY slightest word or action or thought that you can make a high crimes and misdemeanors case required for impeachment. It simply isn’t there. Yet the people who committed REAL high crimes, obstruction, FISA fraud, etc etc. you think isn’t important.

(2) Rosenstein himself said obstruction could NOT be established, though Trump was not exonerated from it. There was no crime committed so to try to get obstruction out of this is pretty ridiculous. Defending one’s reputation or declaring on e’s innocence is not obstruction. And it appears the investigation was based on nothing from the beginning.

ragingloli's avatar

From Judge Napolitano’s article about the Müller Report:
“127 confirmed communications between the campaign and Russians from July 2015 to November 2016”
and
“Mueller laid out at least a half-dozen crimes of obstruction committed by Trump—from asking former Deputy National Security Adviser K.T. McFarland to write an untruthful letter about the reason for Flynn’s chat with Kislyak, to asking Corey Lewandowski and then-former White House Counse lDon McGahn to fire Mueller and McGahn to lie about it, to firing Comey to impede the FBI’s investigations, to dangling a pardon in front of Michael Cohen to stay silent, to ordering his aides to hide and delete records.”

stanleybmanly's avatar

It’s interesting that the wall of “see no evil” journalism erected at FOX concerning Trump is experiencing significant major cracks. Not only Napolitano, but Shepard Smith as well has come out and factually stated that Trump crossed the line in the obstruction of justice. There may be nothing saintly about Hillary, but no one in the history of the country has been accused of more crimes nor investigated as endlessly as her and her husband. The irony is that in 30 years, the only thing made to stick on either of them was the “crime” of lying about a blow job. NOW if Clinton can be impeached for lying, I ask you to consider the repercussions in store for the current piece of work.

seawulf575's avatar

@stanleybmanly wasn’t it you that repeatedly told me “where there’s smoke, there’s probably fire” about Trump? All because you and your like were desperate to find something wrong with Trump, you were trying to tie long past crimes committed by current associates into some tie to Trump crimes. Yet you cannot apply that same logic to Hillary. Yes, she and Bill have been accused of and investigated for many, many crimes. They have been tied to even more that they were not investigated for. And some they have been found guilty of. So if there are so many, why is it so hard for you to believe that she can be guilty of anything now? Or that, with the political corruption in this country, she could have gotten out of punishment or prosecution because it would look bad for the party? THAT is what makes no sense in this whole discussion.
Meanwhile you (and your ilk) persist with the presentation of opinion as fact to try making Trump look bad. You swore up and down to me that Mueller was closing in on Trump. You swore the indictments and impeachment for crimes was just around the corner. You swore the ties to Trump and Putin were right there, obvious for everyone to see and Mueller was going to show them as being real. You argued endlessly that I was so naive to believe the entire Mueller investigation was a political stunt and witch hunt. Yet after all the dust settled, Trump was not found to have not “colluded” with Russia at all. Now the whole desperate wish is that there might be something about obstruction that could be used. Even the Dems in Congress know that is a pipe dream which is why they are now trying to dig into every private matter Trump has ever had to see if he might have done anything that could be construed as being a crime. One has to wonder if ANY of them could stand up to that sort of inspection. The Dems (and their supporters) have become pathetic.

stanleybmanly's avatar

Whistle on past the graveyard. Pretend the fool has a clean bill of health. The Clintons woke up late, but now have their millions. If they’ve gotten away with murder and all of the other crimes you would prefer to see them stuck with—good luck with you in setting it straight. Regardless of what you THINK I told you about the downfall of the walking dung heap, whether you like it or not, Mueller has examined the stench and revealed the substantial turd beneath it. It isn’t over yet Wulf. And the Democrats have taken a page from the conservative playbook to smoke your pig without mercy. And I hope they render his life just as miserable as he surely deserves.

seawulf575's avatar

And you continue to be delusional. Not sure how you make it through life.

stanleybmanly's avatar

With your prayers and continued good wishes I’m sure I will keep doing just fine.

seawulf575's avatar

And what may be most surprising to me is that you actually have both from me.

Answer this question

Login

or

Join

to answer.

This question is in the General Section. Responses must be helpful and on-topic.

Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
or
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther